Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Articles _ Wikipedia ruins "The Mousetrap" by giving away the ending....

Posted by: the fieryangel

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307307/Agatha-Christies-The-Mousetrap-Wikipedia-puts-end-secret-whodunnit.html and the Christie heirs are pissed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Mousetrap#Ending_spoiler

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...

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 1st September 2010, 8:18pm) *
Or they could just not include the spoiler in the article...


That is beyond the intelligence, sensitivity and creativity of the parasitical runts.

Sorry ... did I miss out 'adolescent' in "parasitical runts"?

Oh, imagine the precendent it would set for them, the arguments, the gaming ... Wikipedia excluding information? They much rather just fuck someone else over and bother not a bit.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Daily Mail article)

The rules of its licence mean it can only be performed once outside the West End each year, allowing for the identity of the murderer to stay secret.

These terms seem to ensure I'll live the rest of my life without seeing a performance of this play or http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2002/jan/01/artsfeatures. How many royalties could they possibly be losing?

In other news, check out the earliest edits to The Crying Game, circa Sept. 2001. This came up on the mailing list in the last big argument about "spoilers".

Posted by: dtobias

Why should this play have any more (or less) protection against spoilers than any other suspenseful work of fiction?

SNAPE KILLED [censored]!
[censored] IS LUKE'S FATHER!
SOYLENT GREEN IS [censored]!
ROSEBUD IS [censored]!

Posted by: taiwopanfob

QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:11pm) *
Why should this play have any more (or less) protection against spoilers than any other suspenseful work of fiction?


For the same reason why BLP victims should be accommodated: the/a principal is making the request.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 6:11pm) *

Why should this play have any more (or less) protection against spoilers than any other suspenseful work of fiction?

SNAPE KILLED [censored]!
[censored] IS LUKE'S FATHER!
SOYLENT GREEN IS [censored]!
ROSEBUD IS [censored]!


THE NEW SHERIFF IS A [censored]


Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 7:21pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:11pm) *
Why should this play have any more (or less) protection against spoilers than any other suspenseful work of fiction?

For the same reason why BLP victims should be accommodated: the/a principal is making the request.
What in the world is wrong with using a collapse box for spoiler information, so that someone simply needs to click once to read it? I'd prefer that courtesy, myself, so I could choose to see it or not. I did, from this here, go read the article, and I'm a little sorry I did, if I ever am able to see the play. It's a spoiler. Sometimes we forget that knowledge has purposes.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 3:11am) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 6:11pm) *

SNAPE KILLED [censored]!
[censored] IS LUKE'S FATHER!
SOYLENT GREEN IS [censored]!
ROSEBUD IS [censored]!

THE NEW SHERIFF IS A [censored]

LIFE IS A STATE OF [censored].
I'M A BIG, BRIGHT, SHINING [censored].
ASH IS A GODDAMN [censored]!
MICKEY, I'M [censored].
FORGET IT JACK, IT'S [censored].
GOOD GRIEF—IT'S [censored].

These are probably too easy.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 3:39am) *

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 7:21pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:11pm) *
Why should this play have any more (or less) protection against spoilers than any other suspenseful work of fiction?

For the same reason why BLP victims should be accommodated: the/a principal is making the request.
What in the world is wrong with using a collapse box for spoiler information, so that someone simply needs to click once to read it? I'd prefer that courtesy, myself, so I could choose to see it or not. I did, from this here, go read the article, and I'm a little sorry I did, if I ever am able to see the play. It's a spoiler. Sometimes we forget that knowledge has purposes.

You knew the plot was going to be spoiled. If you don't want to understand the work, read a review instead. I'm steering clear of this article! ;-)
The writing of a review that doesn't spoil the story line is very subjective, and temporal, and is best left to professional writers writing for a specific audience.
Wikipedia articles about fiction are writing for a) people who are stupid enough to click on a Wikipedia link while searching for a review, or b) wanting to read an encyclopedia style article about the work.

The 'Wikipedia has spoilers' issue did make sense when we first removed the spoiler collapse boxes, but people have had a long time to be stung by this, and should have learnt the hard way by now, if common sense didnt kick in the first time.
The only improvement to the current situation would be for Wikipedia articles about fiction to have a prominent notice above them indicating that the page that follows does include spoilers, so googlers have an extra chance to realise and click back.
Reading a great novel the second time is more enjoyable, rather than less. The same goes for seeing plays. I've never watched the same play by the same company, but I doubt that the experience is diminished the second time if it was good the first time.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 5:28am) *

You knew the plot was going to be spoiled. If you don't want to understand the work, read a review instead. I'm steering clear of this article! ;-)

You mean you're saving up to watch this play?

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 5:36am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 5:28am) *

You knew the plot was going to be spoiled. If you don't want to understand the work, read a review instead. I'm steering clear of this article! ;-)

You mean you're saving up to watch this play?

I'm not saving for this play, but a holiday could put me in the right spot at the right time.
I don't normally read Wikipedia articles about fiction until after I have read/seen/walked out on/etc the work, unless I am pretty confident that I am unlikely to be interested in enjoying it first hand.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 5:28am) *
Reading a great novel the second time is more enjoyable, rather than less. The same goes for seeing plays. I've never watched the same play by the same company, but I doubt that the experience is diminished the second time if it was good the first time.


For most people interested in this stuff, reading the same murder mystery again is about as exciting as solving a solved crossword puzzle.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

That play is still running in London? I saw it 20 years ago. I barely remember anything of the production today, whereas I can I recall details of shows that I saw on Broadway when I was a kid in the 1970s.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 2:23pm) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 5:28am) *
Reading a great novel the second time is more enjoyable, rather than less. The same goes for seeing plays. I've never watched the same play by the same company, but I doubt that the experience is diminished the second time if it was good the first time.


For most people interested in this stuff, reading the same murder mystery again is about as exciting as solving a solved crossword puzzle.

It may not be as 'exciting' the second time, but it can be equally enjoyable, if it was well written.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 4:39am) *

What in the world is wrong with using a collapse box for spoiler information, so that someone simply needs to click once to read it? I'd prefer that courtesy, myself, so I could choose to see it or not.

Well, I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mousetrap&oldid=384331693#Should_we_put_the_ending_of_Agatha_Christie.27s_The_Mousetrap_in_a_collapsed_box.3F, but got soundly defeated. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 1st September 2010, 9:38pm) *

QUOTE(Daily Mail article)

The rules of its licence mean it can only be performed once outside the West End each year, allowing for the identity of the murderer to stay secret.

These terms seem to ensure I'll live the rest of my life without seeing a performance of this play or http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2002/jan/01/artsfeatures. How many royalties could they possibly be losing?

In other news, check out the earliest edits to The Crying Game, circa Sept. 2001. This came up on the mailing list in the last big argument about "spoilers".

"I see dead people...." They don't know they're dead. Some of them are editing wikipedia.... unhappy.gif

The Sixth Sense film is a case where you have to see it again even after you've seen it once. Spoilers remove only part of the fun.

I saw The Mousetrap in London in 1977, and it had been running for many years before that. I'd see it again today, as that was so long ago I don't remember a damned thing about it, except that it had an O. Henry style ending. Which don't tell me, as I may be in London some time again before I die (you see, I'm not yet sick of it wink.gif ). Though, with so many unvisited places in the world, don't bet on this unless I get rich or somebody invents an antiaging pill.

Posted by: HRIP7

Useful http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/business/media/18spoiler.html?src=busln in the New York Times today. I must say I did enjoy Holmes' (Rupert, not Sherlock) comment:

QUOTE
Rupert Holmes ... questioned the motives of someone eager to report the surprise in a creative work, whetheron a personal blog or a collaborative project like Wikipedia — calling the achievement, at best, “a momentary sense of superiority.”

“It’s the self-aggrandizing vandalism of another person’s potential pleasure. It’s spray-painting your name across the face of the Mona Lisa and thinking you’re one up on Da Vinci.”

Bull's eye, mate.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 17th September 2010, 7:11pm) *

Useful http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/business/media/18spoiler.html?src=busln in the New York Times today. I must say I did enjoy Holmes' (Rupert, not Sherlock) comment:

Now that's funny. Wikipedia is so pathetic, even a mediocre-pop-singer-http://www.aislesay.com/NY-CURTAINS.html-http://www.hollywoodreportereurope.com/hr/film-reviews/the-first-wives-club-theater-review-1004000566.story-http://www.ericdsnider.com/theater/the-mystery-of-edwin-drood/ can criticize them effectively.

(And in the interests of full disclosure, I must say that I always thought Mr. Holmes's music was unlistenable drivel.
The kind of awful sappy MOR stuff that radio stations calling themselves things like "Soft And Warm, The Quiet Storm" play repeatedly.)

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 17th September 2010, 11:36pm) *

(And in the interests of full disclosure, I must say that I always thought Mr. Holmes's music was unlistenable drivel.
The kind of awful sappy MOR stuff that radio stations calling themselves things like "Soft And Warm, The Quiet Storm" play repeatedly.)


So, you don't like pina coladas. But don't tell me you don't like getting caught in the rain?

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 18th September 2010, 5:00am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 17th September 2010, 11:36pm) *

(And in the interests of full disclosure, I must say that I always thought Mr. Holmes's music was unlistenable drivel.
The kind of awful sappy MOR stuff that radio stations calling themselves things like "Soft And Warm, The Quiet Storm" play repeatedly.)


So, you don't like pina coladas. But don't tell me you don't like getting caught in the rain?

So I waited with high hopes
Then I thought I'd collapse:
He was dressed like a tranny
And and on top, leather straps.
It was our own Poetlister,
Straight from e-Harmon-y
And I gagged for a moment,
And I said, "Well, fuck me..."

So you like Coleridge and Kipling
And lists of all kinds of Jews?
And you're way into bondage--
I guess that last isn't news...
And you like playing games on B-boards
Like you're a cute female friend--
You're the chat pal I've prayed for--
Go log on; we'll pretend!

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 12th September 2010, 3:24pm) *
Well, I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mousetrap&oldid=384331693#Should_we_put_the_ending_of_Agatha_Christie.27s_The_Mousetrap_in_a_collapsed_box.3F, but got soundly defeated. biggrin.gif

How can sane people possibly reject a perfectly reasonable compromise proposal like that? Even if it wouldn't be a positive PR move, which it obviously would be, you'd think the purpose of Wikipedia should be to help people, and unavoidable spoilers quite simply have the opposite effect. (Whereas roll-up spoilers, IMO, would be perfectly fine.)

Even after all this time, their behavior can be almost completely mystifying, and not in a good way, either. Roll-up technology exists, it's perfect for these situations, why not use it?

I should note that I've never seen The Mousetrap, and I won't be reading this article any time soon just in case I do, and therefore I'm just going to assume that it's poorly-written, badly-illustrated, inaccurate, and full of misplaced emphasis.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 12th September 2010, 8:37pm) *

I saw The Mousetrap in London in 1977, and it had been running for many years before that. I'd see it again today, as that was so long ago I don't remember a damned thing about it, except that it had an O. Henry style ending. Which don't tell me, as I may be in London some time again before I die (you see, I'm not yet sick of it wink.gif ). Though, with so many unvisited places in the world, don't bet on this unless I get rich or somebody invents an antiaging pill.

I don't believe you. dry.gif

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 18th September 2010, 5:56pm) *

I should note that I've never seen The Mousetrap, and I won't be reading this article any time soon just in case I do…

Are there special circumstances due to which you think this is likely?

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 18th September 2010, 12:20pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 12th September 2010, 8:37pm) *

I saw The Mousetrap in London in 1977, and it had been running for many years before that. I'd see it again today, as that was so long ago I don't remember a damned thing about it, except that it had an O. Henry style ending. Which don't tell me, as I may be in London some time again before I die (you see, I'm not yet sick of it wink.gif ). Though, with so many unvisited places in the world, don't bet on this unless I get rich or somebody invents an antiaging pill.

I don't believe you. dry.gif


Which part? If you don't like any of the story above, I've got something else. smile.gif

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

God, that arsehole Garrett 'SarekOfVulcan' Fitzgerald has to chime in too with his illogic. I suppose he picked up on this from reading WR here.

These people have no spirit of fun at all. A consensus of arseholes is always going to be arseholery. No big surprise there.

I suppose his logic also determines that "if they did not want people outside the theater to find out the ending, they shouldn't have performed the play either".

I must check the Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy topics to make sure the child in Africa knows they DO NOT EXIST either!

QUOTE
No. There is no reason to treat this any differently than any other published work. If they didn't want people outside the theater to find out the ending, they shouldn't have published the play.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC


Of course, he misses the point too. Folks had been seeing the play for much longer than it was published (if it has been).

The whole thing is about a 'spirit of fun' that everyone entered into voluntarily for the sake of entertainment.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 18th September 2010, 6:56pm) *

How can sane people possibly reject a perfectly reasonable compromise proposal like that? Even if it wouldn't be a positive PR move, which it obviously would be, you'd think the purpose of Wikipedia should be to help people, and unavoidable spoilers quite simply have the opposite effect. (Whereas roll-up spoilers, IMO, would be perfectly fine.)

Even after all this time, their behavior can be almost completely mystifying, and not in a good way, either. Roll-up technology exists, it's perfect for these situations, why not use it?

I should note that I've never seen The Mousetrap, and I won't be reading this article any time soon just in case I do, and therefore I'm just going to assume that it's poorly-written, badly-illustrated, inaccurate, and full of misplaced emphasis.

I agree about the mystifying bit. confused.gif

There seems to be a real fear that by compromising, you sell your soul or something, and the world as we know it will come to an end.

If you make a concession on The Mousetrap, next thing you won't be able to prominently display a large picture of a rotting leg in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gangrene&action=historysubmit&diff=368063611&oldid=368003866 article, and next thing after that you won't be able to have any electrocuted penises in Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) (T-H-L-K-D).

And where would the Foundation's encyclopaedic mission be then, eh?

Posted by: SarekOfVulcan

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sat 18th September 2010, 10:35pm) *

God, that arsehole Garrett 'SarekOfVulcan' Fitzgerald has to chime in too with his illogic. I suppose he picked up on this from reading WR here.


Unlike you, I _do_ have a life that doesn't involve posting here. :-)

http://www.facebook.com/#!/album.php?aid=211558&id=135705273259

ETA: Um, I suppose I should suggest _not_ scrolling to the bottom if you haven't read the Wikipedia article. :-)

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(SarekOfVulcan @ Sun 19th September 2010, 5:01am) *
Unlike you, I _do_ have a life that doesn't involve posting here. :-)

Sure, we know. Indeed, it is a wonder how you fit it all in ... and reading here!

I still think your, and much of the Wikipedia, sucks though.

This is a case where, if there was good editorial control, a sense of style and a spirit of fun could be entered into. It really is not necessary to spoil everything just because one can.

Looking at the topic, they even highlight that the identity of the murderer is included. Now that's just being insensitively churlish.

And insensitivity seems to be pretty much what others are accusing you of being over a period of years.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sun 19th September 2010, 12:22am) *
And insensitivity seems to be pretty much what others are accusing you of being over a period of years.

It's hopeless. Sarek's such an arrogant twat, if he believed the sky was yellow, he'd probably buy
15 pairs of glasses with yellow lenses. Wear them every day, and accuse anyone who told him the
sky is blue of "incivility". He's the Perfect Wikipedia Douchebag, in other words. His delusions are
airtight and ironclad.

Damn glad he's in Maine, 3000 miles from me.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

Wikipedia could do http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Spoiler

The Neoseeker wikis have a spoiler tag.

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:JSpoiler.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 19th September 2010, 5:55am) *

If you make a concession on The Mousetrap, next thing you won't be able to prominently display a large picture of a rotting leg in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gangrene&action=historysubmit&diff=368063611&oldid=368003866 article, and next thing after that you won't be able to have any electrocuted penises in Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) (T-H-L-K-D).

And where would the Foundation's encyclopaedic mission be then, eh?


Is this a rhetorical question?
Because to me, it's a serious and real question. Not that I expect the torch-and-forks folks here to get it.
dry.gif

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 2:47pm) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 19th September 2010, 5:55am) *

If you make a concession on The Mousetrap, next thing you won't be able to prominently display a large picture of a rotting leg in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gangrene&action=historysubmit&diff=368063611&oldid=368003866 article, and next thing after that you won't be able to have any electrocuted penises in Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) (T-H-L-K-D).

And where would the Foundation's encyclopaedic mission be then, eh?


Is this a rhetorical question?
Because to me, it's a serious and real question. Not that I expect the torch-and-forks folks here to get it.
dry.gif

This is a prime example of the fallacy of simplistic assumptions. A lot of "you mustn't do this because of the consequences" arguments on Wikipedia seem to work on the premise that a reasonable action must lead to an unreasonable action.

It is all part of the "if it isn't simple, we don't want to know" logic that underwrites Libertarianism, Objectivism and so on. It is assumed that decision-making must be demonstrably consistent without consideration of changing environments.

I mean, how stupid is it to suggest that the reasoning for hiding an ending to a mystery is the same reasoning as to why it is appropriate to hide pictures that are not appropriate for some of the various audiences that access Wikipedia. Of course Wikipedians seem to think that the idea of presenting different information to different audiences is just too hard and therefore need not be done.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sun 19th September 2010, 4:09pm) *

Of course Wikipedians seem to think that the idea of presenting different information to different audiences is just too hard and therefore need not be done.


No, it's not that it is hard. It is simply nonsensical. No audience should have public and notable information withdrawn from it.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 4:05pm) *
No, it's not that it is hard. It is simply nonsensical. No audience should have public and notable information withdrawn from it.

Oh, for goodness sake ... it is a bit of fun, an Olde English tradition. It really is not going to kill the girl in Africa, for whom the Wikipedia is really all about, if she does not get to know. Must you spoil everything for everyone? Do you feel so much more superior for knowing it?
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 19th September 2010, 9:14am) *
It's hopeless. Sarek's such an arrogant twat, if he believed the sky was yellow, he'd probably buy 15 pairs of glasses with yellow lenses. Wear them every day, and accuse anyone who told him the sky is blue of "incivility".

He's the Perfect Wikipedia Douchebag, in other words. His delusions are airtight and ironclad.

Part of my fear is that is dealing with such a disproportionately nerdie community, as one does on the Wikipedia, is that one is dealing with a disproportionately high number of individuals suffering from borderline personality disorders.

Or perhaps it is a question of having to spend time with too many individuals who spend so much time dealing with unfeeling software rather than human beings that they inevitably end up treating other human beings like software glitches. Discretion ... spirit of fun ... does not compute.

I don't know ... just send the Order's Most Worthy Matrons a whole load of Wikipedia hard core porn and links, and get him to justify pulling the wings off newcomers as a community leader rather than dealing with all the filth to them.
QUOTE
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock of Vulcan

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sun 19th September 2010, 5:12pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 4:05pm) *
No, it's not that it is hard. It is simply nonsensical. No audience should have public and notable information withdrawn from it.

Oh, for goodness sake ... it is a bit of fun, an Olde English tradition. It really is not going to kill the girl in Africa, for whom the Wikipedia is really all about, if she does not get to know. Must you spoil everything for everyone? Do you feel so much more superior for knowing it?


I don't understand. Superior to who? I don't feel superior to anyone. I simply know that it is public and very notable knowledge, and it oughts to be reported in any encyclopedia. I would have been very much annoyed to read an encyclopedia article, read that it has a notable plot twist etc. and then having the twist not revealed. That would have been disrespectful towards the readers expecting a complete entry.

I live in Olde England, even if only since 18 months, and I understand the Olde English tradition. Still, we're not screaming the murder's name in front of the theater. You can simply not read the article, and be happy with that. I just finished to see The Prisoner 1967 series a couple weeks ago. Did I go to WP reading about it before seeing the end? No, of course, I just waited and enjoyed it, and then I was happy to see a complete entry on WP about it, to try to understand it (gee, talk about psychedelic ending).

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 5:48pm) *

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sun 19th September 2010, 5:12pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 4:05pm) *
No, it's not that it is hard. It is simply nonsensical. No audience should have public and notable information withdrawn from it.

Oh, for goodness sake ... it is a bit of fun, an Olde English tradition. It really is not going to kill the girl in Africa, for whom the Wikipedia is really all about, if she does not get to know. Must you spoil everything for everyone? Do you feel so much more superior for knowing it?


I don't understand. Superior to who? I don't feel superior to anyone. I simply know that it is public and very notable knowledge, and it oughts to be reported in any encyclopedia. I would have been very much annoyed to read an encyclopedia article, read that it has a notable plot twist etc. and then having the twist not revealed. That would have been disrespectful towards the readers expecting a complete entry.

I live in Olde England, even if only since 18 months, and I understand the Olde English tradition. Still, we're not screaming the murder's name in front of the theater. You can simply not read the article, and be happy with that. I just finished to see The Prisoner 1967 series a couple weeks ago. Did I go to WP reading about it before seeing the end? No, of course, I just waited and enjoyed it, and then I was happy to see a complete entry on WP about it, to try to understand it (gee, talk about psychedelic ending).

However, you are being deliberately perverse. The suggestion on the table is that there are ways of presenting information that allow people to make an informed decision as to whether they are presented with information or not.

In simple terms, if someone goes to see Mousetrap, one of the conceits of the performance is that the audience at the end is told not to reveal the ending. If you mentioned to someone you were going to see it (and I would implore people not to as when I saw it it was an appalling production) you would think it most improper for someone to tell you the ending without you explicitly requesting that information (and you would be considered somewhat odd for asking to be told). Why Wikipedians think that there is a duty to impart this information in a way that it can unwittingly be read is beyond comprehension.

The recent investigation on Wither Wikipedia? very much recognised respect for its audience was an issue. This is a trivial but telling exchange on that matter.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sun 19th September 2010, 7:23pm) *

Why Wikipedians think that there is a duty to impart this information in a way that it can unwittingly be read is beyond comprehension.


Why do people think that going in an article called "The Mousetrap" and scroll to the ending (which is advertised with a big heading called "Plot" and another slightly smaller heading called "Identity of the murderer") can happen "unwittingly", is beyond comprehension.

The duty to impart this information openly and without spoiler boxes or other gimmicks is simple. It is an encyclopedia. It is not a school book for dummy bamboozled braindead babies. It is supposed to contain information plainly and openly. Even the one that people don't want necessarily to read. If you want to create the Happy Baby Pedia, with nice flowers in place of the gangrene images, cute kittens in place of sexuality articles, and "Woohoo this is a funny play" instead of information about a play well: by all means please do. But meanwhile, let's respect adult readers that have enough grey matter to 1)understand what an encyclopedia is about 2)not scream in panic when they see something that is not as cute and glittery as their baby world used to be.

I don't want to be treated as a braindead baby, and I respect readers enough to not want to treat them as braindead babies. WP shouldn't act as a nanny, "we know what it's best for you" kind of thing. It should be a service: This is a collection of information of public notable information on subject X. It aims, with all its shortcomings, to be as complete as possible. Do what you think of it.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 12:05pm) *

No, it's not that it is hard. It is simply nonsensical. No audience should have public and notable information withdrawn from it.

Great, Cyclopia; I agree with you! Let's begin with you. Have you ever done anything that was notable and public? How about anyone in your family? Any of your closest friends?

If so, have you documented this all in Wikipedia, down to the very last publicly-available detail?

If not, why are you and your family and your friends such boring, non-notable losers?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 11:48am) *
I would have been very much annoyed to read an encyclopedia article, read that it has a notable plot twist etc. and then having the twist not revealed. That would have been disrespectful towards the readers expecting a complete entry.

First of all, that's a ludicrous assertion - the reader isn't going to feel disrespected because an encyclopedia entry fails to provide the twist ending to a whodunit. And if you put the spoiler in a rollup (or rather, rolldown) box, you're giving the reader the choice of whether or not he/she wants to read it - that's actually far more respectful than making an assumption one way or another.

In other words, you can safely assume that if someone goes to the WP article for The Mousetrap, he/she is going to want some general info on the play, how long it's been running, who wrote it and when, etc., and probably the essentials of the story (who the characters are, what's the setup, what the mystery they're trying to solve). But you can't assume the reader is going to want the article to spoil it for them.

This applies to the photo of the gangrenous leg, too. You talk about these things as though it would be "censorship" to put them in rolldown boxes, but how is that censorship? What it is, is serving the needs of a diverse readership. But Wikipedians never, ever, ever want to do that; they only want to serve their own needs, whatever those may be. Except that in this case, I can't see how even their own needs would be served by this - that's why it's "mystifying." At least with the gangrenous leg, the photo has some chock value in itself, and the reader therefore gets as clearer idea of how serious gangrene is. But with the Mousetrap spoiler, there's just no inherent value there whatsoever.

I realize that some of us have chuckled at WP'ers in the past for getting so worked up over the spoiler issue, so maybe we're being a bit hypocritical now for getting worked up over it ourselves... But in my case, the issue is unwillingness to make a simple compromise for the benefit of readers. What's more, it's one that you couldn't even make in a paper encyclopedia - the WP'ers are opposed to the use of something that, if used, would help to further prove the inherent superiority of data over paper as an information medium. So why are they so against it? Are they really that afraid that they're going to have to change half-a-million other articles to use rolldown boxes, just to be "consistent"? That's the only thing I can think of, and it's a pretty shitty excuse.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 1:35pm) *
The duty to impart this information openly and without spoiler boxes or other gimmicks is simple. It is an encyclopedia. It is not a school book for dummy bamboozled braindead babies. It is supposed to contain information plainly and openly. Even the one that people don't want necessarily to read. If you want to create the Happy Baby Pedia, with nice flowers in place of the gangrene images, cute kittens in place of sexuality articles, and "Woohoo this is a funny play" instead of information about a play well: by all means please do...

So your response is a series of strawmen. That's a bit typical, isn't it? Is everyone who disagrees with you some kind of fascist, then, who sees readers as "brain-dead babies"?

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 19th September 2010, 7:51pm) *
QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 11:48am) *
I would have been very much annoyed to read an encyclopedia article, read that it has a notable plot twist etc. and then having the twist not revealed. That would have been disrespectful towards the readers expecting a complete entry.

First of all, that's a ludicrous assertion - the reader isn't going to feel disrespected because an encyclopedia entry fails to provide the twist ending to a whodunit.


I would. I would feel to be treated like a moron, and I would be feeling that an important piece of information is missing without reason.

QUOTE
And if you put the spoiler in a rollup (or rather, rolldown) box, you're giving the reader the choice of whether or not he/she wants to read it - that's actually far more respectful than making an assumption one way or another.


But this choice already exists: if you don't want to know, don't read the article. I don't know where you live, but here people are not compulsively obliged to read all the WP (maybe if it's what happens in your place, I understand the hatred you have for it rolleyes.gif )

QUOTE
In other words, you can safely assume that if someone goes to the WP article for The Mousetrap, he/she is going to want some general info on the play, how long it's been running, who wrote it and when, etc., and probably the essentials of the story (who the characters are, what's the setup, what the mystery they're trying to solve). But you can't assume the reader is going to want the article to spoil it for them.


Why? The ending is, if anything, the most notable feature of the play. It's only plain that I'd want it to be in open air in the article.

QUOTE
This applies to the photo of the gangrenous leg, too. You talk about these things as though it would be "censorship" to put them in rolldown boxes, but how is that censorship? What it is, is serving the needs of a diverse readership. But Wikipedians never, ever, ever want to do that; they only want to serve their own needs, whatever those may be. Except that in this case, I can't see how even their own needs would be served by this - that's why it's "mystifying." At least with the gangrenous leg, the photo has some chock value in itself, and the reader therefore gets as clearer idea of how serious gangrene is. But with the Mousetrap spoiler, there's just no inherent value there whatsoever.


The point is that you treat information like it had only some "external" value. Like it makes sense only because it is useful.

It has, of course, and a lot of it. But most importantly, information has value in itself. It's an end, not a mean. If I want to know how a Chaetognatha (T-H-L-K-D) looks like, I expect to see a picture of it. Not because I need to recognize arrow worms now or in the foreseeable future, but because it is an essential part of the information I was looking for.

Same for gangrene. It's not that I want the images because they can help the public realize that gangrene is serious. It's, much more simply, because these images are the answer to the question "how does gangrene actually looks like?" and there's no reason on earth to hide this, on an encyclopedic article on the subject.

QUOTE
I realize that some of us have chuckled at WP'ers in the past for getting so worked up over the spoiler issue, so maybe we're being a bit hypocritical now for getting worked up over it ourselves... But in my case, the issue is unwillingness to make a simple compromise for the benefit of readers. What's more, it's one that you couldn't even make in a paper encyclopedia - the WP'ers are opposed to the use of something that, if used, would help to further prove the inherent superiority of data over paper as an information medium. So why are they so against it? Are they really that afraid that they're going to have to change half-a-million other articles to use rolldown boxes, just to be "consistent"? That's the only thing I can think of, and it's a pretty shitty excuse.


No, I am afraid that instead of an encyclopedia providing information we become a neutered nanny thing.

(What happened with the bbcode?)

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 19th September 2010, 7:54pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 1:35pm) *
The duty to impart this information openly and without spoiler boxes or other gimmicks is simple. It is an encyclopedia. It is not a school book for dummy bamboozled braindead babies. It is supposed to contain information plainly and openly. Even the one that people don't want necessarily to read. If you want to create the Happy Baby Pedia, with nice flowers in place of the gangrene images, cute kittens in place of sexuality articles, and "Woohoo this is a funny play" instead of information about a play well: by all means please do...

So your response is a series of strawmen. That's a bit typical, isn't it? Is everyone who disagrees with you some kind of fascist, then, who sees readers as "brain-dead babies"?


I am not talking of your intentions. I am talking of what the practical,final effect would be.

Posted by: Cyclopia

Also, for example, it seems that http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/09/19/should-wikipedia-articles-contain-movie-spoilers/ (not everyone but a reasonable majority) actually endorse WP containing spoilers without warnings and other gimmicks. A nice surprise.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 2:07pm) *
I am not talking of your intentions. I am talking of what the practical,final effect would be.

I'm not talking of my intentions either...?

I see little evidence that the practical, final effect would be any different than what it's likely to be now, other than that fewer people would be pissed off at Wikipedia. (So hey, maybe I shouldn't be arguing for this.)

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 2:42pm) *
Also, for example, it seems that http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/09/19/should-wikipedia-articles-contain-movie-spoilers/ (not everyone but a reasonable majority) actually endorse WP containing spoilers without warnings and other gimmicks. A nice surprise.

Read it again, then.

I see a lot of people arguing that spoilers should be included, and several people arguing that tags/warnings are unnecessary - after all, they can be distracting. But very few people there are arguing against rollups (I'm just going to call them that from now on) - in fact, I'd say most people are either for them, or don't even know what they are, or that they're an available option.

(There might also be some selection bias here - it seems to me that "cinema-loving guys" who watch a lot of movies and like to discuss them on internet forums are more likely to want to know the endings to movies than not, so that they can pretend to have seen them when they argue the merits of those movies with other forum members.)

Also, rollups are not a "gimmick." A "gimmick" is an animated GIF flashing naked boobs at you every 10 seconds. Rollups are a "handy feature" that serve a legitimate purpose, which include improving readability and aesthetics. I've been considering trying to work out the BBCode so that we can have them here on WR, in fact. (One of these days!)

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 2:03pm) *
I would. I would feel to be treated like a moron, and I would be feeling that an important piece of information is missing without reason.

It's not "missing" if it's in a rollup... Admittedly, some people here are arguing that the spoilers be taken out altogether, but again, to me the issue is unwillingness to compromise from a community that supposedly prides itself on its ability to achieve "consensus" on difficult and controversial issues.

QUOTE
But this choice already exists: if you don't want to know, don't read the article.

Good choice. Could you tell the Google folks about that, so they can de-index the whole site?

QUOTE
Why? The ending is, if anything, the most notable feature of the play. It's only plain that I'd want it to be in open air in the article.

You're saying the ending itself is the most notable feature, even though until now, most people who hadn't seen the play had no idea what the ending was?

I think you're confused; the most notable feature (other than its success, and its author) is the fact that the ending has been kept a secret by so many theatre-goers. Not quite the same thing, but either way you don't have to reveal the ending to make the point that the ending is "notable."

QUOTE
QUOTE
...But with the Mousetrap spoiler, there's just no inherent value there whatsoever.
The point is that you treat information like it had only some "external" value. Like it makes sense only because it is useful.

Again, that's not what I said at all, nor would I say such a thing. If I'm writing an encyclopedia for the benefit of readers of that encyclopedia (as opposed to writing it primarily fr my own benefit), I'm going to take their needs into account; I'm not going to say "this information has value to me, and therefore it has to go in." That's been Wikipedia's problem all along, in terms of article content. You might say it's their entire content problem in a nutshell.

What I did say is that there's no inherent value in revealing that particular bit of information without at least some sort of extra action required on the part of the reader, and of course I stand by that.

Earlier I made a misstatement, in that I suggested that a paper encyclopedia couldn't do something similar to an HTML/JavaScript rollup box. In fact, the paper encyclopedia could simply offload certain pieces of "spoiler" or other information into the back of the book, or even a separate value - IOW, they'd be available to people who wanted to see them, but not without a little extra effort. It's the same reason used for the existence of glossaries, indexes, and so on - there are certain things that don't have to be, or shouldn't be, part of the main text, so you give people the choice. What is so wrong with that?

QUOTE
...most importantly, information has value in itself. It's an end, not a mean.

Are you sure you really, really mean to say that information is an end, not a mean? I suspect you're using a different definition of the word "information" than most people use, and that's me being charitable.

QUOTE
Same for gangrene. It's not that I want the images because they can help the public realize that gangrene is serious. It's, much more simply, because these images are the answer to the question "how does gangrene actually looks like?" and there's no reason on earth to hide this...

There is a reason; you just don't think it's a good reason. FYI the reason is that if you're a parent it would be nice if your kid wouldn't wake you up in the middle of the night to tell you he can't sleep because he saw a horrible picture on Wikipedia and now he thinks his leg is going to fall off. (And if you're the kid, it would be nice not to have nightmares of that nature) However, I'll admit that reasoning is extremely tenuous, and in that case I wouldn't make an issue of it... but then again, that might be simply because I don't have kids.

QUOTE
No, I am afraid that instead of an encyclopedia providing information we become a neutered nanny thing.

Sure, that's understandable from the perspective of a person who isn't particularly sensitive to, well, much of anything. I feel the same way, or at least I would, if I had no compassion or ability to see things from perspectives other than my own. Can you?

QUOTE
(What happened with the bbcode?)

Sorry, Gomi was trying something there. I, uh, fixed it... wink.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(SarekOfVulcan @ Sun 19th September 2010, 1:01am) *

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sat 18th September 2010, 10:35pm) *

God, that arsehole Garrett 'SarekOfVulcan' Fitzgerald has to chime in too with his illogic. I suppose he picked up on this from reading WR here.


Unlike you, I _do_ have a life that doesn't involve posting here. :-)

http://www.facebook.com/#!/album.php?aid=211558&id=135705273259


You call that a life? unsure.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sat 18th September 2010, 10:35pm) *

God, that arsehole Garrett 'SarekOfVulcan' Fitzgerald has to chime in too with his illogic. I suppose he picked up on this from reading WR here.


Still, it is nice to know that people are reading us. smile.gif

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 19th September 2010, 10:10pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 2:03pm) *
I would. I would feel to be treated like a moron, and I would be feeling that an important piece of information is missing without reason.

It's not "missing" if it's in a rollup...


Wait. I replied to what you said:
QUOTE
the reader isn't going to feel disrespected because an encyclopedia entry fails to provide the twist ending to a whodunit.

not to:
QUOTE
the reader isn't going to feel disrespected because an encyclopedia entry hides the twist ending to a whodunit in a rollup.


In the second case, I wouldn't be feeling the piece of information missing (of course) but I would find the whole thing ugly and unnecessarily distracting. And also philosophically distracting, in the sense that it's simply not right that I have to go through unnecessary hoops to find something that it is expected to be there.

It's any way disrespectful because it seems to me that in the rollup case, WP goes out of its arm to acts as a nanny, by saying "see, we know you don't really want to know this". WTF?

QUOTE
Admittedly, some people here are arguing that the spoilers be taken out altogether, but again, to me the issue is unwillingness to compromise from a community that supposedly prides itself on its ability to achieve "consensus" on difficult and controversial issues.


I understand your chuckle at consensus. But for once, it truly was one: on the rollup, all editors apart Jayen466 rebuked it.

QUOTE
QUOTE
But this choice already exists: if you don't want to know, don't read the article.

Good choice. Could you tell the Google folks about that, so they can de-index the whole site?


What has this to do with that? Google doesn't force me to click on WP links.

QUOTE
You're saying the ending itself is the most notable feature, even though until now, most people who hadn't seen the play had no idea what the ending was?

I think you're confused; the most notable feature (other than its success, and its author) is the fact that the ending has been kept a secret by so many theatre-goers. Not quite the same thing, but either way you don't have to reveal the ending to make the point that the ending is "notable."


And how do I understand why the ending is kept secret, and why it is such a famous whodunit, without knowing such ending? It would be frustratingly incomplete information.

QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE
...But with the Mousetrap spoiler, there's just no inherent value there whatsoever.
The point is that you treat information like it had only some "external" value. Like it makes sense only because it is useful.
Again, that's not what I said at all, nor would I say such a thing. If I'm writing an encyclopedia for the benefit of readers of that encyclopedia (as opposed to writing it primarily fr my own benefit), I'm going to take their needs into account; I'm not going to say "this information has value to me, and therefore it has to go in." That's been Wikipedia's problem all along, in terms of article content. You might say it's their entire content problem in a nutshell.


I don't understand. The "need" that an encyclopedia aims to solve is that of information on notable, public subjects. There are no other needs we should care of -curing common cold is a need for me, in this exact moment, but I don't expect WP to help me in that. If your need is to look at a glance at a play without having spoilers, well, it's a reasonable need, but that's not the need general purpose encyclopedias are made for.


QUOTE
QUOTE
...most importantly, information has value in itself. It's an end, not a mean.

Are you sure you really, really mean to say that information is an end, not a mean? I suspect you're using a different definition of the word "information" than most people use, and that's me being charitable.


It's probably my awkward English coming into play (I'm not native-English speaking, I'm an Italian horse-eating barbaric thing, remember?) but what I mean is that knowledge (perhaps a better term) has a value per se, disconnected from practical use, and that as such it is an end. Probably it is my mind-set: I am a researcher, and my job is all about digging knowledge for knowledge's sake.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Same for gangrene. It's not that I want the images because they can help the public realize that gangrene is serious. It's, much more simply, because these images are the answer to the question "how does gangrene actually looks like?" and there's no reason on earth to hide this...

There is a reason; you just don't think it's a good reason. FYI the reason is that if you're a parent it would be nice if your kid wouldn't wake you up in the middle of the night to tell you he can't sleep because he saw a horrible picture on Wikipedia and now he thinks his leg is going to fall off. (And if you're the kid, it would be nice not to have nightmares of that nature)


In this case, the parents should reassure the kid, and explain him/her that in the world, unfortunately, there are also a lot of bad things, not only good ones.

I personally find extremly diseducative to hide from kids the unavoidable fact that the world is not a 100% nice place. I think kids should get to grasp that from the very beginning. "There are good things, there are nasty things, my son. Both are part of our world. You must be enjoy the first, and be strong enough to stand the latter, and if possible work to avoid/fight them. "

But even if you disagree with that, it's simple: keep WP away from your kids. Or use some kind of filtering.

QUOTE
QUOTE
No, I am afraid that instead of an encyclopedia providing information we become a neutered nanny thing.

Sure, that's understandable from the perspective of a person who isn't particularly sensitive to, well, much of anything. I feel the same way, or at least I would, if I had no compassion or ability to see things from perspectives other than my own. Can you?


I can. I only think that in the end it would lead, globally, to a worse outcome, to care about all of this, for everyone (even for these sensitive, compassionate people). A world where information is censored to make the world like a Teletubbies episode is not the kind of world we want to live in.

(There is again the bbcode doing something wrong with quotes. Is it my fault? I hate bbcode, wouldn't plain HTML be better?)

Posted by: EricBarbour

Okay, Cyclopia. Here's a question for you.

Do you know what a BLP is? Biography of living person.
How do you feel about Wikipedia's treatment of BLPs?

And oh, by the way, are you aware of how Daniel Brandt was treated when certain powerful
Wikipedia administrators created a BLP about him, against his wishes, and with the apparent
reason being to "punish" or "belittle" Mr. Brandt?

Yes, it happened. First, back http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=774.
And it http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=742&hl= http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=791&hl=, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt and http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17916 and http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21103 and http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21224.......

One idiot even tried to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1157.
Another idiot created an account on Wikipedia Review, for the express purpose of http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=979.
All for one reason, and one reason only: to punish Brandt, for criticizing Wikipedia.

It happened, because the people who run your "encyclopedia" are a bunch of crazy bastards.
They are not stable. They cannot be trusted to make sound, rational decisions.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 4:44pm) *
...And also philosophically distracting, in the sense that it's simply not right that I have to go through unnecessary hoops to find something that it is expected to be there.

A single mouse click doesn't qualify as "hoops," surely?

The issue of whether or not it's "expected" is also quite arguable, but I'm not really arguing that point.

QUOTE
It's any way disrespectful because it seems to me that in the rollup case, WP goes out of its arm to acts as a nanny, by saying "see, we know you don't really want to know this".

No, they'd be saying, "we know there's a chance that you don't really want to know this." WP wouldn't be acting as a "nanny" in that scenario (though they probably would be if they left the spoiler out altogether). They'd be acting as a "friend to the reader," and while I realize it's not necessarily an encyclopedia's job to be friendly to the reader, it's not its job to be unfriendly to the reader either.

I'm more than willing to accept the idea that you'd feel disrespected, though... and sure, I could be wrong, but I just happen to believe you're in a tiny minority of people who would even care, much less actually feel that way. And unfortunately, on WP that "tiny minority" seems to hold sway over a lot of fairly important and significant editorial practices.

QUOTE
QUOTE
...Could you tell the Google folks about that, so they can de-index the whole site?
What has this to do with that? Google doesn't force me to click on WP links.

We hear that argument quite a lot, and yes, of course they don't force you, but regardless the argument is bogus when you understand the reality. The reality is that WP and its scrapers have so completely dominated the search-engine environment that it's becoming extremely difficult to find general information in encyclopedic format about most subjects that hasn't been tainted by WP, either by direct scraping or by simple reference linking. Wikipedia is worse than Wal-Mart and Microsoft in that respect. Just because it doesn't have advertising doesn't mean it doesn't promote a monoculture, or that it isn't using its "charity" status (not to mention its negligible operating/publishing costs) to destroy competitors.

QUOTE
And how do I understand why the ending is kept secret, and why it is such a famous whodunit, without knowing such ending?

Well, that's a good point. For people to simply take Wikipedia's word for it that the ending is a clever surprise twist, thereby not requiring disclosure of the ending itself, Wikipedia has to have something called "credibility."

I'm merely saying that Wikipedia's credibility is not improved or enhanced by including the disclosure. Its reputation for arrogance and insensitivity to the work of artists is certainly reinforced, but as to whether that's an improvement... I guess that depends on your perspective! smile.gif

QUOTE
If your need is to look at a glance at a play without having spoilers, well, it's a reasonable need, but that's not the need general purpose encyclopedias are made for.

And who, exactly, determines what needs "general purpose encyclopedias" are made for? (Hint: It's not an either/or thing; the writers should respect the preferences and sensitivities of the readers, just not to the point of being unreasonable. You simply have a different definition of "unreasonable" than I do.)

QUOTE
...what I mean is that knowledge (perhaps a better term) has a value per se, disconnected from practical use, and that as such it is an end. Probably it is my mind-set: I am a researcher, and my job is all about digging knowledge for knowledge's sake.

So once again you're allowing your personal values to dictate what other people should and should not be presented with. Which is fine, if you're also willing to see it from their perspective too, which you're (apparently) not.

QUOTE
In this case, the parents should reassure the kid, and explain him/her that in the world, unfortunately, there are also a lot of bad things, not only good ones.

Presumably they've already done that...? Obviously we see a lot of this "it's the reader's responsibility to know that this article is going to be {obscene/disgusting/biased/disturbing/nightmare-inducing/take-your-pick}" stuff, and to some extent I even sympathize with it, but again, I'm not a parent and I have a relatively high personal tolerance for gore, obscenity, and so on. Whatever happened to "err on the side of caution," anyway? Was that a pre-21st -Century-only thing?

QUOTE
I personally find extremly diseducative to hide from kids the unavoidable fact that the world is not a 100% nice place. I think kids should get to grasp that from the very beginning.

So who's being the "nanny" now, then? Isn't that what the nanny does, ensure that the kids are getting what's best for them? Maybe even if the parents would rather make those decisions themselves...?

QUOTE
I only think that in the end it would lead, globally, to a worse outcome, to care about all of this, for everyone (even for these sensitive, compassionate people). A world where information is censored to make the world like a Teletubbies episode is not the kind of world we want to live in.

There's that word "censored" again, followed by the strawman (and Teletubbies? That's not even a very good strawman. You know that Jerry Falwell thinks they're promoting homosexuality, right?)

QUOTE
(There is again the bbcode doing something wrong with quotes. Is it my fault? I hate bbcode, wouldn't plain HTML be better?)

Actually, we reduced the quote-embedding limit from 10 to 5 because of something Moulton was doing, I think. I raised it back to 10, but we both blew past that several posts ago, so now I've raised it to 20... We're going to have to look into this, but you're right, quote-embedding problems are one of the most annoying things about BBCode. But if you allow raw HTML, you get people embedding all sorts of nasty little tracking pixels and JavaScript, or worse. Anyway, sorry about that, it's definitely annoying, but luckily it doesn't happen all that often. In fact, it's usually me who's doing it, when it happens!

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 19th September 2010, 11:32pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 4:44pm) *
...And also philosophically distracting, in the sense that it's simply not right that I have to go through unnecessary hoops to find something that it is expected to be there.

A single mouse click doesn't qualify as "hoops," surely?

The issue of whether or not it's "expected" is also quite arguable, but I'm not really arguing that point.


We're never going to agree on this, so fine. I explained on the RFC why I don't think we should put a rollup. Almost all of the editors agreed: it doesn't mean I am right, of course. But it means the issue is not as simple as you put it.


QUOTE
QUOTE
It's any way disrespectful because it seems to me that in the rollup case, WP goes out of its arm to acts as a nanny, by saying "see, we know you don't really want to know this".

No, they'd be saying, "we know there's a chance that you don't really want to know this." WP wouldn't be acting as a "nanny" in that scenario (though they probably would be if they left the spoiler out altogether). They'd be acting as a "friend to the reader," and while I realize it's not necessarily an encyclopedia's job to be friendly to the reader, it's not its job to be unfriendly to the reader either.


What escapes me is why having the spoiler is unfriendly to the reader.
Again: an encyclopedia is supposed to give the reader certain things. An IMDB entry is supposed to give others. A film review is supposed to give others still. Different things for different purposes.

If people use an encyclopedia (which is supposed to have complete information in plain view) for something an encyclopedia is not made for (for example, looking for information on a play without knowing the plot), then it's them being wrong, not the encyclopedia. It's like buying a pint of hydrocloric acid, drinking it, then complaining it burned your throat. That's not the use it was supposed for.

QUOTE
I'm more than willing to accept the idea that you'd feel disrespected, though... and sure, I could be wrong, but I just happen to believe you're in a tiny minority of people who would even care, much less actually feel that way. And unfortunately, on WP that "tiny minority" seems to hold sway over a lot of fairly important and significant editorial practices.


I don't know: almost all people I talked with (not WP editors) agreed with me. Probably each one attracts similar acquaintances, however.

QUOTE
The reality is that WP and its scrapers have so completely dominated the search-engine environment that it's becoming extremely difficult to find general information in encyclopedic format about most subjects that hasn't been tainted by WP, either by direct scraping or by simple reference linking. Wikipedia is worse than Wal-Mart and Microsoft in that respect. Just because it doesn't have advertising doesn't mean it doesn't promote a monoculture, or that it isn't using its "charity" status (not to mention its negligible operating/publishing costs) to destroy competitors.


This is a very interesting point. It would be nice indeed to see some strong alternative. Citizendium is one example, I guess, but it is still too slow and it is failing to grow reasonably, as far as I know.

Well, that's a good point. For people to simply take Wikipedia's word for it that the ending is a clever surprise twist, thereby not requiring disclosure of the ending itself, Wikipedia has to have something called "credibility."

QUOTE
I'm merely saying that Wikipedia's credibility is not improved or enhanced by including the disclosure. Its reputation for arrogance and insensitivity to the work of artists is certainly reinforced, but as to whether that's an improvement... I guess that depends on your perspective! smile.gif


You know, I don't care very much about Wikipedia PR. I think Wikipedia (and especially Jimbo) are too sensitive to PR. Wikipedia should do its job as good as possible. It will attract haters and critics, of course, like in this case, for just doing it. It should be no problem.

QUOTE
And who, exactly, determines what needs "general purpose encyclopedias" are made for? (Hint: It's not an either/or thing; the writers should respect the preferences and sensitivities of the readers, just not to the point of being unreasonable. You simply have a different definition of "unreasonable" than I do.)


Probably because we have different definitions of what a general purpose encyclopedia is made for.

QUOTE
QUOTE
...what I mean is that knowledge (perhaps a better term) has a value per se, disconnected from practical use, and that as such it is an end. Probably it is my mind-set: I am a researcher, and my job is all about digging knowledge for knowledge's sake.

So once again you're allowing your personal values to dictate what other people should and should not be presented with. Which is fine, if you're also willing to see it from their perspective too, which you're (apparently) not.


You see, the asymmetry goes this way:
- If controversial information X is presented, and I don't want to see it, I can easily avoid it: I just avoid to see it.
- If controversial information X is not presented, and I want to see it, it is usually a much harder work.

That's why presenting it is the best solution. By showing something you do not dictate anything, because you always have the choice to avoid (unless you are Alex of the Clockwork Orange under the Ludovico treatment). By restraining, instead, you keep people away actively from stuff. The job of an encyclopedia is to make finding information easier, not harder.

(This reasoning doesn't include the rollup thing, of course: but again, there are other reasons for that, see above discussion/RFC)


QUOTE
QUOTE
I personally find extremly diseducative to hide from kids the unavoidable fact that the world is not a 100% nice place. I think kids should get to grasp that from the very beginning.

So who's being the "nanny" now, then? Isn't that what the nanny does, ensure that the kids are getting what's best for them? Maybe even if the parents would rather make those decisions themselves...?


But they can already make the decisions themselves! Block WP from your kid's computer, and hoopla! problem solved for everyone. It requires a line of text in your /etc/hosts file (or the Windows equivalent, I don't know).

QUOTE
QUOTE
I only think that in the end it would lead, globally, to a worse outcome, to care about all of this, for everyone (even for these sensitive, compassionate people). A world where information is censored to make the world like a Teletubbies episode is not the kind of world we want to live in.

There's that word "censored" again, followed by the strawman (and Teletubbies? That's not even a very good strawman. You know that Jerry Falwell thinks they're promoting homosexuality, right?)


Hahah, no, I didn't know the homosexuality bit. That said, I understand you see it as a strawman, but I see it as the unavoidable -even if not desired, perhaps- outcome of the "err on the side of caution" point of view.

QUOTE
But if you allow raw HTML, you get people embedding all sorts of nasty little tracking pixels and JavaScript, or worse.


I understand that, but, perhaps some strict HTML subset? Or -oh the irony!- MediaWiki syntax? After all, it is presumed for people here to be familiar with it! happy.gif

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 19th September 2010, 11:28pm) *

Okay, Cyclopia. Here's a question for you.

Do you know what a BLP is? Biography of living person.
How do you feel about Wikipedia's treatment of BLPs?

And oh, by the way, are you aware of how Daniel Brandt was treated when certain powerful
Wikipedia administrators created a BLP about him, against his wishes, and with the apparent
reason being to "punish" or "belittle" Mr. Brandt?

Yes, it happened. First, back http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=774.
And it http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=742&hl= http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=791&hl=, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt and http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17916 and http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21103 and http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21224.......

One idiot even tried to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1157.
Another idiot created an account on Wikipedia Review, for the express purpose of http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=979.
All for one reason, and one reason only: to punish Brandt, for criticizing Wikipedia.

It happened, because the people who run your "encyclopedia" are a bunch of crazy bastards.
They are not stable. They cannot be trusted to make sound, rational decisions.


I have little respect for Brandt -and I personally think he should have a BLP- yet I agree that a lot of jerkiness was put on him and that doing things like proposing its article for FA is in utter bad faith at best. But Brandt is a bit of an edge case (he did his part in pissing editors off -not that it is a justification of any sort). About BLP in general, my opinion is that there is a mix of reasonable concerns and misguided paranoia on them (I think the whole "burn unreferenced BLPs!" affair was in the best case an utter waste of time, in the worse case a net loss for the encyclopedia), but I strongly agree that pending changes or whatever it is called should be enabled by default on all BLPs -random IP vandalism is a big no-no on such articles.

But this has little to do with The Mousetrap, I think?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 7:12pm) *

I have little respect for Brandt...


It cuts both ways, clown...


Image

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 7:12pm) *

But this has little to do with The Mousetrap, I think?


Well, if you want "The Mousetrap"...


Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:21am) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 7:12pm) *

I have little respect for Brandt...


It cuts both ways, clown...



I was just forgetting why I didn't bother to write here. You know, the high level of conversation probably.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 7:03pm) *
But this choice already exists: if you don't want to know, don't read the article.

Sure, the same goes for pictures of kids having sex or pedo cartoons. "We must document it!!!" ... and if people are offended by it ... then they just should not read the articles ???
QUOTE
Same for gangrene. It's not that I want the images because they can help the public realize that gangrene is serious. It's, much more simply, because these images are the answer to the question "how does gangrene actually looks like?"

The problem is, we all here have good insight into the minds that create the Wikipedia with none of the buy-in encouraging us to unquestionably believe in its tenents. As with a lot of nasty and self-made porno pictures (including the kiddie porn), I'd be more inclined to believe they are just placed their for puerile shock value. Like why does it need x 100 pictures of ejaculations?

Ditto with the spoiler issue. A large proportion of Wikipedian like spoiling things. They are senseless, conceited, puerile spoilers themselves. They are the site is too full of its own importance. They are young, immature, irresponsible, incapable of seeing a bigger picture. Many are actually vengeful, hateful, obsessive.

It is easy to argue that what is notable about The Mousetrap is that you are politely requested not to divulge the murderer at the end. The request is part of the performance and 'The Mousetrap Experience', its success or notability based on it. As far as I understand, it is a fairly mediocre piece of middle of the road theatre; in other words, not otherwise notable at all.

And so we have to ask whether the exposure is genuine (and I would argue there is no genuine need), or just some jerk off have a laugh cocking a snoot at a convention and using the Pee-dia to propel it to the top of Google.

Then you have the vocal minor that will fight against anything like sitewide spoilers because they know they are incapable of managing them due to the lack of consistent editorial overview ...

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:57am) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 7:03pm) *
But this choice already exists: if you don't want to know, don't read the article.

Sure, the same goes for pictures of kids having sex or pedo cartoons. "We must document it!!!" ... and if people are offended by it ... then they just should not read the articles ???


About kids having sex, I guess that stuff is illegal for good reasons (being the product of child abuse), so it's quite clearly fine not having it.

About cartoons depicting underage sex (like, say, a cartoon of Bart Simpson having sex), I have always been totally baffled by the fact that they are illegal in several jurisdictions. It is clearly a victimless crime (T-H-L-K-D). The reason for them being illegal seems to be based only on the mass hysteria around pedophilia. I mean, I understand the main reason to have pedo pics illegal is that of cutting down the market of such stuff that is inextricably related, obviously, to child abuse. But cartoons? Are we protecting Bart Simpson or Charlie Brown from pedophilia? It makes no sense.

(Depictions of real people with clearly recognizable faces would be another story).

So, for the second, yes: on an article about such cartoons, I would expect an image (victimless crime laws notwithstanding), and if people are offended by it, then they should just not read the articles.

QUOTE
The problem is, we all here have good insight into the minds that create the Wikipedia with none of the buy-in encouraging us to unquestionably believe in its tenents. As with a lot of nasty and self-made porno pictures (including the kiddie porn), I'd be more inclined to believe they are just placed their for puerile shock value. Like why does it need x 100 pictures of ejaculations?


There is a lot of people of course posting a lot of stuff for exhibitionist reasons, or even perhaps for shock value. But why should I care of people's intentions? I care of the result. If such behaviour leads to have multiple good quality images for a subject, that's only good.

QUOTE
Ditto with the spoiler issue. A large proportion of Wikipedian like spoiling things. They are senseless, conceited, puerile spoilers themselves. They are the site is too full of its own importance. They are young, immature, irresponsible, incapable of seeing a bigger picture. Many are actually vengeful, hateful, obsessive.


Funny, I'd say the same of many WR regulars dry.gif (perhaps because they were/are wikipedians for the most part?) I mean, it's them that consider posting doodled pictures of their interlocutors as reasonable dialogue.

Apart from that, I'd say that in this case it is people who wants stuff removed/hidden that doesn't see the big picture. They see the short-term, small advantage of making people less offended, and don't see the wider benefit that open, complete information gives to everyone. It is a much more subtle and much more difficult to quantify one, but it is a bigger one in my opinion. Of course, YMMV.

QUOTE
It is easy to argue that what is notable about The Mousetrap is that you are politely requested not to divulge the murderer at the end. The request is part of the performance and 'The Mousetrap Experience', its success or notability based on it. As far as I understand, it is a fairly mediocre piece of middle of the road theatre; in other words, not otherwise notable at all.

And so we have to ask whether the exposure is genuine (and I would argue there is no genuine need), or just some jerk off have a laugh cocking a snoot at a convention and using the Pee-dia to propel it to the top of Google.


I am honestly not sure to understand what you mean, sorry.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:19am) *
Apart from that, I'd say that in this case it is people who wants stuff removed/hidden that doesn't see the big picture. They see the short-term, small advantage of making people less offended, and don't see the wider benefit that open, complete information gives to everyone.

Could I have a link to your homepage/blog so that I can know more about you, please? I find your position hard to understand without knowing more personal details.
QUOTE
if people are offended by it, then they should just not read the articles.

It is not just about taking personal offense. It is both about our collective crafting of society and a concern about how society is being crafted.

For sure, one can sit at home with headphones and blinkers on "not being offended". That does not stop society being made by others.

How old are you by the way and what positions of responsibility do you or have you occupied?

Thank you.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 20th September 2010, 2:59am) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:19am) *
Apart from that, I'd say that in this case it is people who wants stuff removed/hidden that doesn't see the big picture. They see the short-term, small advantage of making people less offended, and don't see the wider benefit that open, complete information gives to everyone.

Could I have a link to your homepage/blog so that I can know more about you, please? I find your position hard to understand without knowing more personal details.
QUOTE
if people are offended by it, then they should just not read the articles.

It is not just about taking personal offense. It is both about our collective crafting of society and a concern about how society is being crafted.

For sure, one can sit at home with headphones and blinkers on "not being offended". That does not stop society being made by others.

How old are you by the way and what positions of responsibility do you or have you occupied?

Thank you.


I am an Italian 29-years old postdoctoral biophysics researcher at the University of Cambridge, UK.
What about you?

(That said, what has my background to do with the discussion? Opinions are opinions, their validity doesn't change depending on who is saying them)

Posted by: taiwopanfob

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 2:04am) *

(That said, what has my background to do with the discussion? Opinions are opinions, their validity doesn't change depending on who is saying them)


I'm sorry, but you are offering arguments, not opinions. The validity of an argument, which we can define here as the willingness of a typical reader to accept it without extensive in-depth research, is indeed related in some sense to who is making it. It just happens that in this case your credentials as a biophysics researcher are completely beside the point re: spoilers in articles. Get it?

Not only that, but your argument is complete nonsense anyways, even if you had the reputation capital in this area.

As I understand them: you demand the solutions to murder mysteries be placed in articles. Anything else is a terrible insult to the reader.

Well, there is also the business that giving away the answer -- which is mainly why people like this sort of thing in the first place -- is also going to offend some readers. Probably more.

Oh no! What to do? Well, it's pretty obvious what can be done, the technical means to do it already exists, and there is no reason why not to do it. Well, except that the entire population of Wikifreaks made up, out of whole cloth, the whole spoiler shit some time ago. Remember? It used to be that spoilers were clearly marked, giving the reader a chance. But then More Senior fruitcakes at the project decided this was Morally Wrong and in an wiki version of Kristallnacht they hunted down and destroyed all the spoiler warnings in the entire project. This act effectively set your bullshit as de facto policy, and as we all know that the ill-informed opinions of the wikicrats are far, far more important than the mere readers. Oh yes indeed, anyone who objects, well, "They can all go fork themselves.", right?

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:01am) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 2:04am) *

(That said, what has my background to do with the discussion? Opinions are opinions, their validity doesn't change depending on who is saying them)


I'm sorry, but you are offering arguments, not opinions. The validity of an argument, which we can define here as the willingness of a typical reader to accept it without extensive in-depth research, is indeed related in some sense to who is making it. It just happens that in this case your credentials as a biophysics researcher are completely beside the point re: spoilers in articles. Get it?


Not really. I don't think this is a forum of experts on the subject of the public exposure of plot details on online encyclopedias. Are you, or any other guy here, an expert on the subject?

If so, let us know about that, so that we can share your expert knowledge on the subject -perhaps with some link to an academic bibliography that we can read. If not, you and me are just people who happen to discuss on a forum, without any academic qualification, and so we're at the same level -thus our backgrounds are irrelevant.

QUOTE
Not only that, but your argument is complete nonsense anyways, even if you had the reputation capital in this area.


So, my background is indeed irrelevant, despite what you said above.

QUOTE
As I understand them: you demand the solutions to murder mysteries be placed in articles. Anything else is a terrible insult to the reader.

Well, there is also the business that giving away the answer -- which is mainly why people like this sort of thing in the first place -- is also going to offend some readers. Probably more.

Oh no! What to do? Well, it's pretty obvious what can be done,


Yes. To me it is pretty clear. The answer is: nothing.
Offending readers is not something that can be taken into account when dealing with encyclopedias. Encyclopedias collect notable facts and notable opinions. They should not invent anything: they should collect what exists. If the existence of something offends you, it's not the encyclopedia problem: it is your problem.

See for example the infamous gangrene pictures. Gangrene is a fact of nature, just like magnolia flowers or water ice. It only happens that there are more people that dislike to see gangrene pictures than magnolia flowers pictures. But we cannot take into account what people like and dislike: that is simply not our job. Most importantly: it must not be our job. That's because what an encyclopedia is meant to is to document, and to do that objectively and fairly: to take into account subjective judgements of some population categories (e.g. people who can't see gangrene pictures) would make the encyclopedia equally subjective. And where would it end? Who knows what offends Scientologists, for example: should we hide Xenu (T-H-L-K-D) for them? Should we hide material on satanism (T-H-L-K-D) to make Christians happy? What next? Everyone can scream "X offends me!" and require deletion/hiding of content on such grounds.

We create a collection of structured information where everything is on (proportionally) equal grounds. But then, it's up to the user to decide to avoid what he/she dislikes. Nobody forces anything on the user: it is full of technical and less technical means to avoid information you dislike. I do it all the time exactly to avoid spoilers: I simply avoid to read. Simple, isn't it? Or you are free to use another encyclopedia. It's not like everyone is forced to read Wikipedia. Or you could create a, so to say, family-friendly mirror of WP. Why not?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 8:29pm) *
Offending readers is not something that can be taken into account when dealing with encyclopedias. Encyclopedias collect notable facts and notable opinions. They should not invent anything: they should collect what exists. If the existence of something offends you, it's not the encyclopedia problem: it is your problem.

See for example the infamous gangrene pictures. Gangrene is a fact of nature, just like magnolia flowers or water ice.

Or Soggy biscuit, perhaps?
It's been up for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soggy_biscuit_%284th_nomination%29.

Real encyclopedias don't do insane nonsense like that.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:41am) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 8:29pm) *
Offending readers is not something that can be taken into account when dealing with encyclopedias. Encyclopedias collect notable facts and notable opinions. They should not invent anything: they should collect what exists. If the existence of something offends you, it's not the encyclopedia problem: it is your problem.

See for example the infamous gangrene pictures. Gangrene is a fact of nature, just like magnolia flowers or water ice.

Or Soggy biscuit, perhaps?
It's been up for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soggy_biscuit_%284th_nomination%29.

Real encyclopedias don't do insane nonsense like that.


Well, yes, it is a fact of nature the same. It seems to be surprisingly notable from the AfD you link. It's also "insane nonsense" but alas, the world is full of notable insane nonsense. It deserves to be documented nonetheless -that I personally don't care/don't like the subject is irrelevant when deciding such things.

(Funny stuff. Thanks for letting me know -I'll remember not to play if someone asks!)

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 19th September 2010, 2:36pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 12:05pm) *

No, it's not that it is hard. It is simply nonsensical. No audience should have public and notable information withdrawn from it.

Great, Cyclopia; I agree with you! Let's begin with you. Have you ever done anything that was notable and public? How about anyone in your family? Any of your closest friends?

If so, have you documented this all in Wikipedia, down to the very last publicly-available detail?

If not, why are you and your family and your friends such boring, non-notable losers?


Questions ignored by Cyclopia. I wonder why?

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 20th September 2010, 5:05am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 19th September 2010, 2:36pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 12:05pm) *

No, it's not that it is hard. It is simply nonsensical. No audience should have public and notable information withdrawn from it.

Great, Cyclopia; I agree with you! Let's begin with you. Have you ever done anything that was notable and public? How about anyone in your family? Any of your closest friends?

If so, have you documented this all in Wikipedia, down to the very last publicly-available detail?

If not, why are you and your family and your friends such boring, non-notable losers?


Questions ignored by Cyclopia. I wonder why?


I don't know, I would start from the utter niceness of the last question, perhaps?
If you want to have a peaceful conversation, fine, but this doesn't seem a way to start one.

That said, no, nothing notable and public so far, apart from a small bunch of academic papers perhaps.
You happy now?

Posted by: taiwopanfob

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 3:29am) *
Not really. I don't think this is a forum of experts on the subject of the public exposure of plot details on online encyclopedias. Are you, or any other guy here, an expert on the subject?


Not really what? That you are not offering arguments?

QUOTE
If so, let us know about that, so that we can share your expert knowledge on the subject -perhaps with some link to an academic bibliography that we can read. If not, you and me are just people who happen to discuss on a forum, without any academic qualification, and so we're at the same level -thus our backgrounds are irrelevant.


You said "Opinions are opinions, their validity doesn't change depending on who is saying them".

You are not "opinioning", but arguing. I pointed out arguments are indeed weighed by who is making them, contrary to your claim. I know that wiki-logic disagrees -- you do not need to waste your precious wiki-time spewing forth on that. I also know that wiki-logic is bullshit. As you say, "your problem, not mine".

QUOTE
QUOTE
Not only that, but your argument is complete nonsense anyways, even if you had the reputation capital in this area.


So, my background is indeed irrelevant, despite what you said above.


Can you understand English? I said that even if you had the capital, your argument is shit. That is to say, your argument is so flawed that it overwhelms any possible reputation you may have in this subject.

Do I have to spell this out in so many words for you? Are you really a biophysics researcher? You truly are evidencing precious little ability to abstract.

QUOTE
QUOTE
As I understand them: you demand the solutions to murder mysteries be placed in articles. Anything else is a terrible insult to the reader.

Well, there is also the business that giving away the answer -- which is mainly why people like this sort of thing in the first place -- is also going to offend some readers. Probably more.

Oh no! What to do? Well, it's pretty obvious what can be done,


Yes. To me it is pretty clear. The answer is: nothing.
Offending readers is not something that can be taken into account when dealing with encyclopedias. Encyclopedias collect notable facts and notable opinions. They should not invent anything: they should collect what exists. If the existence of something offends you, it's not the encyclopedia problem: it is your problem.


Yes, yes, we have heard this all before. Per formal WikiPolicy, it is always the victim who is at fault. Suck's to be them, of course! This is why BLP's are such a massive fuckup at the project, and this is why you "aren't even wrong." Honestly, you are just going to have to accept the fact that few people here are willing to drink as much and as deeply from that font of Wiki-Aid.

QUOTE
See for example the infamous gangrene pictures. Gangrene is a fact of nature, just like magnolia flowers or water ice. It only happens that there are more people that dislike to see gangrene pictures than magnolia flowers pictures. But we cannot take into account what people like and dislike: that is simply not our job. Most importantly: it must not be our job. That's because what an encyclopedia is meant to is to document, and to do that objectively and fairly: to take into account subjective judgements of some population categories (e.g. people who can't see gangrene pictures) would make the encyclopedia equally subjective. And where would it end? Who knows what offends Scientologists, for example: should we hide Xenu (T-H-L-K-D) for them? Should we hide material on satanism (T-H-L-K-D) to make Christians happy? What next? Everyone can scream "X offends me!" and require deletion/hiding of content on such grounds.

We create a collection of structured information where everything is on (proportionally) equal grounds. But then, it's up to the user to decide to avoid what he/she dislikes. Nobody forces anything on the user: it is full of technical and less technical means to avoid information you dislike. I do it all the time exactly to avoid spoilers: I simply avoid to read. Simple, isn't it? Or you are free to use another encyclopedia. It's not like everyone is forced to read Wikipedia. Or you could create a, so to say, family-friendly mirror of WP. Why not?


So you like to write articles that no one should read? This has always been a source of amusement to me, how the whole purpose of the project is to create something that no one really should read in the first place. You know, how unreliable it all is.

I'll also point out that I predicted you would say "Y'all can go fork yourselves!" (The wiki-version of the "America: Love it or Leave it" bullshit 'argument'.)

Anyways, I simply have no idea -- absolutely none! -- how you can segue from revealing the answer to a notable work of puzzle art (be it novel, play, movie, etc) to gangrene, Xenu or Christian sensibilities. These pieces of art exist in big part to engage the viewer, to encourage them to conduct their own 'investigation' so to speak. When you reveal the answer, you markedly reduce the value of the work in question.

Truly there is a superficial resemblance to all the red-herrings you raise. Nevertheless, despite them, this is not a censorship issue, it is not a religious thing nor a matter of intellectual property. It is simple courtesy to the reader. Not much different than how you hold doors for people rushing for the elevator. The readers are the beneficiary of all the work you do, and I frankly have no idea why you would choose to disrespect them in this manner.

But you know, Cyclopia, let's just say that you are absolutely correct anyways. Now, you are full of shit (and be sure, I'm about to prove this another way!), but let's just pretend for a moment, or seven, that you are not full of shit. (I'm being very careful here due to your previous troubles with abstraction; I'm hoping that contra-factuals are within your ken). That allowing for an "expand-a-spoiler" tick-box somewhere on an article about a play is a moral corruption, and that it is inevitable that censor boards in Saudi Arabia and China are next in line. Then come the Xenu-ists, and supporters of boy-raping priests in the Catholic church, and parents who are disgusted by images of horrifying medical conditions.

Now then ... hm ... what is the problem again? Some readers may be offended by some content? Some readers may choose not to want to read some stuff, but others is fine? Worse, that there are groups with mutually incompatible community standards?

While all that is true, I'm afraid that the answer is much simpler (but more complicated). The problem is you are unwilling to create and operate a framework wherein all of these conflicting views can be sustained. Let's list some examples:

The "date formatting" issue. There is also the ongoing Cold War between the UK and the US. Is it "organize" or "organise"? Should units of measurement be SI or Imperial? Both? Should the article on Piss Christ be visible to Christians? IUPAC nomenclature vs. dominant professional jargon? Should spoilers be mainlined into the article, or hidden in special boxes?

You see, it's all the same thing. Not only that, but a lot of these issues have been the basis of many of the nastiest Wiki-wars ever fought (and, generally for the project, lost). This raises an ominous question for you and the other Wiki-Juicers: Is it possible that blind and dogmatic adherence to the Wiki-Way of "lay it out, lay it all out, and to FUCK with anyone who disagrees with us" has caused more problems than it supposedly could solve? Is it possible that creating an encyclopedia is more than just collecting a bunch of disparate data and presenting them all, warts and farts, in some weakly organized form?

You speak of "structured data", but to what purpose is this "structure" to be put? If this is the "readers problem", then why structure the data at all? Or is this just some form of plausible deniability re: "neutral point of view"?

Are you, as an editor at the project, basically lying?

I'll answer that last question for you: yes, you are. This is why that even if you are right (see above), you are still woefully wrong. The problem is not the reader, the problem is you and your lazy-ass attitude, your incomplete encyclopedia that refuses, absolutely refuses, to accommodate any other agency beyond your brainless editors. You could create a system that would accommodate almost any viewpoint, and all of them at the same time. Rather than "forking", these readers can just create a few simple "prisms" (to name these things) which just filter and massage the data, helped along by all that high-falutin "structure" you are creating.

But this would shift the balance of power to the consumers of the content, and that's not allowed, is it? "Go fork yourselves!"

Isn't it interesting that almost all issues surrounding Wikipedia eventually make it down to this?

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Mon 20th September 2010, 6:38am) *

Are you, as an editor at the project, basically lying?

I'll answer that last question for you: yes, you are.


You raise a lot of interesting points; yet if you assume that I am lying, what is the point of a conversation?

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Mon 20th September 2010, 6:38am) *

I'll also point out that I predicted you would say "Y'all can go fork yourselves!"


Note that I said mirror, not fork. You could build a mirror of WP which is family-friendly, or USA-centric, or the like. What I mean is that, WP being free reusable content (under certain very reasonable conditions), you could build the "prisms" you talk about.

I personally find the idea of creating an in-wiki integrated, baroque system of filters to accomodate every conceivable quirk of the user an amusing monstrosity (imagine maintaining such a thing, if anything else).

But the idea of an ecosystem of mirrors where each group makes a filtered version according to its needs is very nice and would settle most of the problems. Each group would be responsible for its own mirror, independently from WP, and decide by itself.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:10pm) *


Note that I said mirror, not fork. You could build a mirror of WP which is family-friendly, or USA-centric, or the like. What I mean is that, WP being free reusable content (under certain very reasonable conditions), you could build the "prisms" you talk about.



Most users simply want not to see crap when idly browsing content. To not suddenly be confronted with certain content at inappropriate moments. If your solution is go buy something else you have failed.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:31am) *

...no, nothing notable and public so far, apart from a small bunch of academic papers perhaps.
You happy now?


No, I'm afraid that doesn't make me happy. You have thus far led a boring, insignificant life. Okay, that covers you. But what about all of your family members? What about all of your friends?

No audience should have public and notable information withdrawn from it. We demand to know, Cyclopia!

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 20th September 2010, 2:35pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:31am) *

...no, nothing notable and public so far, apart from a small bunch of academic papers perhaps.
You happy now?


No, I'm afraid that doesn't make me happy. You have thus far led a boring, insignificant life. Okay, that covers you. But what about all of your family members? What about all of your friends?

No audience should have public and notable information withdrawn from it. We demand to know, Cyclopia!


Since who are my friends is not a notable or public information, I guess there is little to give to the audience.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:41am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 20th September 2010, 2:35pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:31am) *

...no, nothing notable and public so far, apart from a small bunch of academic papers perhaps.
You happy now?


No, I'm afraid that doesn't make me happy. You have thus far led a boring, insignificant life. Okay, that covers you. But what about all of your family members? What about all of your friends?

No audience should have public and notable information withdrawn from it. We demand to know, Cyclopia!


Since who are my friends is not a notable or public information, I guess there is little to give to the audience.


Always the same demonstration for us. "We (often pseudonymous) Wikipedians will decide what is notable and public information. If you are not a dyed-in-the-wool Wikipedian, you have no say in what is notable and public information, and furthermore, you have no right to apply our rules to us, the way we apply rules to you. We Wikipedians don't have to abide by our own rules for you, on the outside."

Cyclopia, if you are ever wondering why there are people in the world who would like to punch people like you in the face, review this post.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 20th September 2010, 3:12pm) *

Always the same demonstration for us. "We (often pseudonymous) Wikipedians will decide what is notable and public information. If you are not a dyed-in-the-wool Wikipedian, you have no say in what is notable and public information, and furthermore, you have no right to apply our rules to us, the way we apply rules to you. We Wikipedians don't have to abide by our own rules for you, on the outside."

Cyclopia, if you are ever wondering why there are people in the world who would like to punch people like you in the face, review this post.


You are always a gentleman.

Posted by: Larry Sanger

This whole situation indicates to me just how committed to silly, adolescent thinking Wikipedia has become. Maintaining their stupid little system has become more important to them than common sense, sensitivity to the ordinary user, their public reputation, and usefulness.

Ultimately, the reason they're so intransigent in defense of the new policy against spoiler warnings has nothing whatsoever to do with "NPOV"; they're simply dead-set against acknowledging the legitimate interests of their users, interests which might impose some independent constraints on how they do their work. After reading the discussion leading up to the rejection of spoiler templates, it strikes me that the idea of putting warnings or labels on their porn is absolutely never going to happen. Acknowledging the interests of school children, who arguably stand to benefit more from Wikipedia than anyone, would be an even bigger concession. Wikipedians want to remain free to do whatever they in their collective fantasy imagine is required by encyclopedia. If they can stick it to ordinary, decent sensibilities, that only makes them happier, because it proves how clever and wise they are.

Basically, Wikipedia is an adolescent encyclopedia. Call it the Peter Pan encyclopedia; it will never grow up.

Posted by: Larry Sanger

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 12:05pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sun 19th September 2010, 4:09pm) *

Of course Wikipedians seem to think that the idea of presenting different information to different audiences is just too hard and therefore need not be done.


No, it's not that it is hard. It is simply nonsensical. No audience should have public and notable information withdrawn from it.

What a simply idiotic thing to say. No response is necessary.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 8:00am) *

Basically, Wikipedia is an adolescent encyclopedia. Call it the Peter Pan encyclopedia; it will never grow up.

Following Jimbo Wales, the head WP puer aeternus. See http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-4-2005-76066.asp. All that happens is that as they grow older, they grow more subtle at finding ways for the world to serve them.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:00am) *

This whole situation indicates to me just how committed to silly, adolescent thinking Wikipedia has become. Maintaining their stupid little system has become more important to them than common sense, sensitivity to the ordinary user, their public reputation, and usefulness.


Quote of the year! laugh.gif

Posted by: Larry Sanger

This is another gem:

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 3:03pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 19th September 2010, 7:51pm) *
QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 11:48am) *
I would have been very much annoyed to read an encyclopedia article, read that it has a notable plot twist etc. and then having the twist not revealed. That would have been disrespectful towards the readers expecting a complete entry.

First of all, that's a ludicrous assertion - the reader isn't going to feel disrespected because an encyclopedia entry fails to provide the twist ending to a whodunit.


I would. I would feel to be treated like a moron, and I would be feeling that an important piece of information is missing without reason.

Missing without reason? And even if we are talking about hiding the information, or merely warning people in advance--that is being done without reason?

Obviously, there is a reason: revealing a significant spoiler ruins the show for people who haven't seen it. Not knowing the ending is crucial to appreciating a whodunit, of course.

How it is that you can pretend this isn't the case, or ignore it when it is the crucial point, is beyond me. Someone who pretends to love the truth as much as you do sure has a funny way of showing it.

Posted by: Larry Sanger

Here's another way to explain it. Basically, Wikipedians noticed that spoiler warnings are a concession to convention: when revealing the ending of a story, writers generally follow the convention of warning the reader in advance, so they do not unwittingly stumble across information that they did not want to know. That's the convention and the reason for it. But Wikipedians, who (like this alleged Cambridge man) fancy themselves committed to the unvarnished truth, are above such piddling conventions. They prove their superiority by flouting the convention, just like any adolescent nonconformist.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:53pm) *

This is another gem:
QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 3:03pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 19th September 2010, 7:51pm) *
QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 11:48am) *
I would have been very much annoyed to read an encyclopedia article, read that it has a notable plot twist etc. and then having the twist not revealed. That would have been disrespectful towards the readers expecting a complete entry.

First of all, that's a ludicrous assertion - the reader isn't going to feel disrespected because an encyclopedia entry fails to provide the twist ending to a whodunit.


I would. I would feel to be treated like a moron, and I would be feeling that an important piece of information is missing without reason.

Missing without reason? And even if we are talking about hiding the information, or merely warning people in advance--that is being done without reason?

Obviously, there is a reason: revealing a significant spoiler ruins the show for people who haven't seen it. Not knowing the ending is crucial to appreciating a whodunit, of course.

How it is that you can pretend this isn't the case, or ignore it when it is the crucial point, is beyond me. Someone who pretends to love the truth as much as you do sure has a funny way of showing it.


I don't pretend that this isn't the case, nor I ignore it.

Simply, in the case of an encyclopedia, I expect spoilers to be present, in plain view, because giving me a resonably complete plot summary it's one of the things that are not only expectable, but desirable in an encyclopedia article.

I said without reason: let's specify, without an encyclopedic reason. I expect encyclopedias to help me find reasonably complete information on a topic, not to help to "appreciate a whodunit". An encyclopedia is a tool for a certain purpose (having complete summary of information on a topic). You talk of using encyclopedias for the wrong purpose (enjoy a play). There is an old proverb in Italy that says: "non puoi avere la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca". I don't know the English equivalent, it translates roughly as "you can't have both a drunk wife and a full barrel".

So, since sometimes I enjoy "whodunits" (so to say), if I have any problem with a certain spoiler, I avoid the related encyclopedia articles. That's what I practically, actually do, as I said above. You know: it works!

Again: you seem to reason like people is forced to look Wikipedia. But it isn't the case. You don't want to see the sexual content on Wikipedia? Don't see it. You don't want to see the spoilers? Don't see them. It's not like you wake up with random Wikipedia articles on troublesome topics printed on your retina. You have Citizendium, Sanger, which is a noble project: use that.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 8:53am) *

Obviously, there is a reason: revealing a significant spoiler ruins the show for people who haven't seen it. Not knowing the ending is crucial to appreciating a whodunit, of course.

How it is that you can pretend this isn't the case, or ignore it when it is the crucial point, is beyond me. Someone who pretends to love the truth as much as you do sure has a funny way of showing it.

Oh, I think Cyclopia knows this "truth." He just doesn't care about other people's feelings, pleasure, or enjoyment. That's what you're missing.

You assume all sympathy fails at the point of understanding, and mostly, in this world, you're right. But in a few rarer cases, empathy fails and a later and more scary spot, up the chain from mere knowledge and understanding. confused.gif The actor knows exactly what "the other" is feeling and why; he just doesn't give a shit.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:14pm) *

Oh, I think Cyclopia knows this "truth." He just doesn't care about other people's feelings, pleasure, or enjoyment. That's what you're missing.

You assume all sympathy fails at the point of understanding, and mostly, in this world, you're right. But in a few rarer cases, empathy fails and a later and more scary spot, up the chain from mere knowledge and understanding. confused.gif The actor knows exactly what "the other" is feeling; he just doesn't give a shit.

Doesn't care what others are feeling? You make Cyclopia sound like some kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Terzaposizione.png!

Posted by: Larry Sanger

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:14pm) *

I don't pretend that this isn't the case, nor I ignore it.

Simply, in the case of an encyclopedia, I expect spoilers to be present, in plain view, because giving me a resonably complete plot summary it's one of the things that are not only expectable, but desirable in an encyclopedia article.

Obviously, very few people agree--indeed, people outside of Wikipedia commenting on this issue appear to be united in saying they hate the fact that there are no spoiler warnings (at a minimum). Unlike you, they don't want to be told, without a very clear warning, the ending of the story. You get that, right?

So, on the one hand, you are pretending to give "a reasonably clear plot summary," in the interests of revealing the full unvarnished truth in the service of humanity, but on the other hand, you are imposing your own idiosyncratic and annoying views of what humanity wants to know, and how they want it known to them.

QUOTE

I said without reason: let's specify, without an encyclopedic reason. I expect encyclopedias to help me find reasonably complete information on a topic, not to help to "appreciate a whodunit". An encyclopedia is a tool for a certain purpose (having complete summary of information on a topic). You talk of using encyclopedias for the wrong purpose (enjoy a play). There is an old proverb in Italy that says: "non puoi avere la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca". I don't know the English equivalent, it translates roughly as "you can't have both a drunk wife and a full barrel".


Are you familiar with the weird English concept of a reasonable compromise?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:19pm) *

Doesn't care what others are feeling? You make Cyclopia sound like some kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Terzaposizione.png!



Does Cyclopia think Clara Petacci was a good looking broad? smile.gif

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 20th September 2010, 5:19pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:14pm) *

Oh, I think Cyclopia knows this "truth." He just doesn't care about other people's feelings, pleasure, or enjoyment. That's what you're missing.

You assume all sympathy fails at the point of understanding, and mostly, in this world, you're right. But in a few rarer cases, empathy fails and a later and more scary spot, up the chain from mere knowledge and understanding. confused.gif The actor knows exactly what "the other" is feeling; he just doesn't give a shit.

Doesn't care what others are feeling? You make Cyclopia sound like some kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Terzaposizione.png!


Lol. I am not. I happen to have a curiosity about far right movements and ideologies, but I am definitely a left-wing guy. In particular, I find nationalism utterly meaningless (even if fascinating to study). I am curious about that stuff for two reasons 1)Because it's miles apart from my worldview, and as such I am intrigued by it 2)Because it's really underdocumented.


Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:31am) *

Lol. I am not. I happen to have a curiosity about far right movements and ideologies, but I am definitely a left-wing guy. In particular, I find nationalism utterly meaningless (even if fascinating to study). I am curious about that stuff for two reasons 1)Because it's miles apart from my worldview, and as such I am intrigued by it 2)Because it's really underdocumented.

You can start by understanding that fascism is not "far right." It's just that "far right" is the only real insult that leftists know, and there's no movement leftists hate more than another leftist movement.

Left = big goverment and centralized control. It is right wing when business runs the government. Once government runs business, you'll already crossed the center line of the political divide. They didn't call it German SOCIALISM for nothing.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 5:27pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:14pm) *

I don't pretend that this isn't the case, nor I ignore it.

Simply, in the case of an encyclopedia, I expect spoilers to be present, in plain view, because giving me a resonably complete plot summary it's one of the things that are not only expectable, but desirable in an encyclopedia article.

Obviously, very few people agree--indeed, people outside of Wikipedia commenting on this issue appear to be united in saying they hate the fact that there are no spoiler warnings (at a minimum). Unlike you, they don't want to be told, without a very clear warning, the ending of the story. You get that, right?


http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/09/19/should-wikipedia-articles-contain-movie-spoilers/, quite clearly populated by people who love to see movies and enjoy them, and let's see what they say:

QUOTE

"If I'm looking up a movie/book/whatever it's because I won't bother watching/reading it myself. I just want to know what happened"

"Absolutely, I agree. I do the same thing. Wikipedia should have all the facts. If you plan to see a film or read a book, you shouldn't be looking it up there. "

"I always check things out on Wikipedia to see if it might be the kind of thing I'm into, to see if it's worth my time.
If it has a PLOT SYNOPSIS, then I read it, if it has a PLOT SUMMARY, then I don't.
Simple. "

"Totally agree. The whole site is based around information. The notion that information be withheld is like looking up cajun style food and expecting them to not tell you the ingredients. That's why I'm looking it up, dammit!"

"Yupp, what exactly am I doing on Wikipedia if I've yet to see the film?

If you need a brief plot synopsis don't read the plot summary. Or go to IMDB."

"I'm on the pro-spoilers side here, if you don't want to know the plot of the film don't read the plot section, if you just want an outline then go to IMDB that's not what an encyclopedia is for. I think people forget that and go to Wikipeda for the wrong reasons and information.
That's just my opinion but I personally I go on the site after I've seen a film to get more information on it, sometimes it's difficult to give information on a film without spoiling it, that shouldn't stop them and they shouldn't have to spoiler tag it. "

"I agree, if your looking for information on a site like Wikipedia where its information is published in an encyclopaedic form, you can expect to find all of the information that can be gathered and verified laid out on the subject page - regardless of whether or not it has plot spoilers.
If you don't want to spoil it for yourself then don't visit these sites. Complaining about this seems foolish, it's your own fault if you think that a site like Wikipedia won't have spoilers. "

"I like how extensive they are. Frequently I go there to check that an absurd ending or plot twist for a film I don't want to see or pay for just to verify if it's true.
IMDB is for a synopsis, Wiki is for the whole damn thing."

"I agree. Many times I'll look up a book or movie on Wikipedia to remind myself of some plot detail that I can't remember, which is when having those spoilers is so important. Just mark the sections that contain. To some extent they already are: the intro to the article gives a quick synopsis and the plot summary part gives a detailed summary. As a rule, don't read the plot summary if you're worried about spoilers."

"Most definitely, if it was a film-centric site like IMDB then probably not, but it isn't "


There is of course a minority disagreeing, to which the answer is:
QUOTE
Yeah, as can be seen here, over 20 people here know how to go to a Wiki article and avoid being spoiled if they don't want to be. This is just really silly. OBVIOUSLY the plot section has "spoilers."

I also rely on Wiki for plot outlines of lots of things I'll never have the opportunity to be an actual audience to -- comics, books, movies, etc.

Go to Rotten Tomatoes for that information, or IMDB. Don't use Wiki for it. If you use the right tool for the job, you'll find it works better.

There are many reasons that a person would want to read through the entirety of a film's summary. Thus, there are many reasons to include the spoiler.
I feel that people are generally smart enough to KNOW that Wikipedia WOULD have the entire plot, and thus, the spoiler.
What does someone, who makes a fuss about this, expect to happen?


And it goes on:
QUOTE
All for the spoilers here. Go to IMDB if you don't want to know. Wikipedia shouldn't withhold facts because of people's entertainment.

It's a reference, not a movie review. It seems a moot subject. Yes, spoilers. Warnings? Ehh.

Of course there has to be spoilers. Otherwise it would be as if your reading an article about World War 2 that has no reference to who won or not, at risk of spoiling your epic read of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
It's an encylopedia. It's meant to have information. Censoring it would be stupid.

it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA! spoilers yes, warnings no! it's still made for normal people, who know what to expect from an ENCYCLOPEDIA and don't want to be bothered by others' fetishes!

If you don't want to be spoiled stay off the internet. It's not everyone else's responsibility for your movie going experience. I'm so sick of this argument on the /filmcast. If you don't want to be spoiled fine but don't expect people to bend over for you. You're and you're film watching habits are your own.


So... what you were saying about people united on the fact that they hate... what, sorry?

QUOTE

So, on the one hand, you are pretending to give "a reasonably clear plot summary," in the interests of revealing the full unvarnished truth in the service of humanity, but on the other hand, you are imposing your own idiosyncratic and annoying views of what humanity wants to know, and how they want it known to them.


I am not imposing anything. As a bunch of film-loving people showed you above, you are more than free not to read. Or not?

QUOTE
QUOTE

I said without reason: let's specify, without an encyclopedic reason. I expect encyclopedias to help me find reasonably complete information on a topic, not to help to "appreciate a whodunit". An encyclopedia is a tool for a certain purpose (having complete summary of information on a topic). You talk of using encyclopedias for the wrong purpose (enjoy a play). There is an old proverb in Italy that says: "non puoi avere la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca". I don't know the English equivalent, it translates roughly as "you can't have both a drunk wife and a full barrel".


Are you familiar with the weird English concept of a reasonable compromise?


Are you familiar with the even weirder concept of "if I don't want to know X, I will avoid to read about X"?

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 20th September 2010, 5:39pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:31am) *

Lol. I am not. I happen to have a curiosity about far right movements and ideologies, but I am definitely a left-wing guy. In particular, I find nationalism utterly meaningless (even if fascinating to study). I am curious about that stuff for two reasons 1)Because it's miles apart from my worldview, and as such I am intrigued by it 2)Because it's really underdocumented.

You can start by understanding that fascism is not "far right." It's just that "far right" is the only real insult that leftists know, and there's no movement leftists hate more than another leftist movement.

Left = big goverment and centralized control. It is right wing when business runs the government. Once government runs business, you'll already crossed the center line of the political divide. They didn't call it German SOCIALISM for nothing.


That's very true. It is called "far right" or "radical right" for sake of simplicity, but it encompasses a very different political spectrum from the "business runs the government" kind of right that became dominant in Western democracies post-WW II. Mussolini was born a socialist, after all.

The point is that of course "left" or "right" are nonsensical in themselves, because the political spectrum is multidimensional.

You should be fascinated by the "nazimaoists", a tiny weird movement that, at least in Italy was born from Franco Freda (T-H-L-K-D) teachings, and that advocated a sort of North Korean-like totalitarian state.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 3:53pm) *
Obviously, there is a reason: revealing a significant spoiler ruins the show for people who haven't seen it. Not knowing the ending is crucial to appreciating a whodunit, of course.

Yeah, well, Larry ... you see ... we don't need reality anymore. Just a 34kb badly written, ever changing, POV document of it. Then were 'know' it. Its ours. We don't need to go and see it, let alone ask if we left it in a sustainable state (like other real world encyclopedias).

On the same topic, do they insist on spoiling every magic trick in the book too?

Cyclopia ... I was thinking more about the plot spoilers of your life. You know, the heartbreaks, the fuck ups, the really nasty things you did to other people, details of your dirty habits. That kind of stuff. The stuff that, as adults, we learn to filter out, keep private, not ask about.

Remember the Jimbo quote about how wonderful it would be if everyone had an openly editable online biography? "What's wrong with that?" or something.

I suppose this discussion is intersected by the other big one, "inclusionism versus deletionism". And, of course, there is censorship on a whim, "deletionizing", POV exclusionism.

This particular question is not about "offense". No one has claimed "offense". For me, it is just about something around tact, style and discretion.

What we are talking about here is The Mousetrap - "The longest running show in the world". If we have to expose it, then why cannot we expose you? Why does not the argument go two ways?

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 20th September 2010, 5:55pm) *

What we are talking about here is The Mousetrap - "The longest running show in the world". If we have to expose it, then why cannot we expose you? Why does not the argument go two ways?


Because "The Mousetrap" is a book that you can buy in every bookshop for a few Euros, or read in every library. My parents had the book (I tried to read it as a kid but I found it very dull). It is already public, in every sense of the word.

My life is not published on any book, nor reported on any newspaper that I am aware of. So, it is private.

And make no mistake: I am openly against publishing private information about people. I am openly pro re-publishing already published and available information that comes in reasonably public sources (books, magazines, etc.)

When people will write my biography and publish it with a diffusion comparable to that of Agatha Christie works, we can talk about that.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 5:45pm) *

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/09/19/should-wikipedia-articles-contain-movie-spoilers/, quite clearly populated by people who love to see movies and enjoy them, and let's see what they say:


Leaving aside the demographics of the people visiting this blog, and how representative they are of the general WP readership, the second-most popular comment on the topic is this one:
QUOTE

Yes by all means Wikipedia should be able to publish spoilers such as this. As a compromise perhaps allow certain things to be marked as spoilers, and then they could be hidden by default and only revealed if the user clicks something.

The most popular comment presents the problem as a black-and-white dichotomy: whether to have spoilers, or whether not have them at all. Here the majority is in favour of having them.

I agree with both of these positions: have the spoiler, but in exceptional cases, for example when the movie has not been released yet, as in the New York Times example, or in a case like The Mousetrap, include it hidden in a roll-down that the reader can reveal. That is a reasonable compromise.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:55am) *

What we are talking about here is The Mousetrap - "The longest running show in the world". If we have to expose it, then why cannot we expose you? Why does not the argument go two ways?

We did expose Cyclopia. We had a photo of him up, and even put a clown cosmetic whiteout makeup around the mouth. He wasn't very happy about it, but then we don't know as many embarrassing things about his life that we know about Jimbo's.

Image

Please note that Jimbo thinks it would be nice if everybody ELSE had an open BLP on the web. His isn't, and he and his lackeys will never allow it to be. But eventually a crowd editable Wiki on Jimbo's life will be on the web, not under Jimbo's control, and draw some attention. Then (methinks) we'll see some "whaling" from his direction.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:00pm) *

Basically, Wikipedia is an adolescent encyclopedia. Call it the Peter Pan encyclopedia; it will never grow up.

That, unfortunately, is the problem in a nutshell.

Posted by: Larry Sanger

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:06pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 5:45pm) *

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/09/19/should-wikipedia-articles-contain-movie-spoilers/, quite clearly populated by people who love to see movies and enjoy them, and let's see what they say:


Leaving aside the demographics of the people visiting this blog, and how representative they are of the general WP readership, the second-most popular comment on the topic is this one:
QUOTE

Yes by all means Wikipedia should be able to publish spoilers such as this. As a compromise perhaps allow certain things to be marked as spoilers, and then they could be hidden by default and only revealed if the user clicks something.

The most popular comment presents the problem as a black-and-white dichotomy: whether to have spoilers, or whether not have them at all. Here the majority is in favour of having them.

I agree with both of these positions: have the spoiler, but in exceptional cases, for example when the movie has not been released yet, as in the New York Times example, or in a case like The Mousetrap, include it hidden in a roll-down that the reader can reveal. That is a reasonable compromise.

Exactly right. I'm actually in favor of having spoilers, generally--maybe even having them for The Mousetrap. But not announcing them in advance, because you declare they aren't necessary for you, ignores the large portion of people who, bless their souls, do not think the way you do.

Posted by: Larry Sanger

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:02pm) *

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 20th September 2010, 5:55pm) *

What we are talking about here is The Mousetrap - "The longest running show in the world". If we have to expose it, then why cannot we expose you? Why does not the argument go two ways?


Because "The Mousetrap" is a book that you can buy in every bookshop for a few Euros, or read in every library. My parents had the book (I tried to read it as a kid but I found it very dull). It is already public, in every sense of the word.

So? Knowledge is an end in itself, not a means. That means our knowledge of all of your nasty secrets is an end in itself. Doesn't matter if it's public or not.

Or, if you want to say that being public or not is somehow a constraint on what knowledge is revealed, or perhaps how it is revealed, then you are going to have actually defend your position on every other similar constraint that you might want to place--or not place--on the revealing of knowledge. In light of these (rather obvious) observations, simply saying "it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible" proves absolutely nothing. We are discussing whether there should be an exception to this general rule. You already concede that there should be some exceptions. We have given a truly excellent reason for why there should be spoiler warnings on egregious spoilers like the whodunit of The Mousetrap: it ruins the experience for the audience who hasn't seen it, and a lot of people won't know that a spoiler might be coming if you don't tell them. As far as I can tell, you don't have any reply to this at all. Saying, "I personally would assume that an encyclopedia article on the play might have spoilers" is not a response, because it isn't about you (unless you're a grown-up adolescent narcissist), it's about serving an international, highly diverse readership, who (again) might not share your provincial, idiosyncratic assumptions.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:02pm) *

My life is not published on any book, nor reported on any newspaper that I am aware of. So, it is private.


Because you are a worthless speck of insignificant, non-productive, non-notable fluff, correct?

Unlike some of the minor rugby players who played once or twice for Welsh teams in the 1960's, because they have Wikipedia articles, right?

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 6:33pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:02pm) *

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 20th September 2010, 5:55pm) *

What we are talking about here is The Mousetrap - "The longest running show in the world". If we have to expose it, then why cannot we expose you? Why does not the argument go two ways?


Because "The Mousetrap" is a book that you can buy in every bookshop for a few Euros, or read in every library. My parents had the book (I tried to read it as a kid but I found it very dull). It is already public, in every sense of the word.

So? Knowledge is an end in itself, not a means. That means our knowledge of all of your nasty secrets is an end in itself. Doesn't matter if it's public or not.

Or, if you want to say that being public or not is somehow a constraint on what knowledge is revealed, or perhaps how it is revealed, then you are going to have actually defend your position on every other similar constraint that you might want to place--or not place--on the revealing of knowledge. In light of these (rather obvious) observations, simply saying "it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible" proves absolutely nothing. We are discussing whether there should be an exception to this general rule. You already concede that there should be some exceptions.


I concede the exception is that private information about people has to be kept private. By WP and by anyone else.

I don't concete the exception that already worldwide published information about a play has to be kept restrained by Wikipedia (and, judging at what it is said here, by WP only, apparently: why don't you launch a campaign to remove the ending from the whole Internet?).

The two things do not compare by any standard. In one case we're talking of something that's no one's business, that is released nowhere, and unverifiable. In the other, we're talking of a famous book, a famous play,published worldwide in thousands of copies. You get the difference?

Posted by: Larry Sanger

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:46pm) *

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 6:33pm) *


So? Knowledge is an end in itself, not a means. That means our knowledge of all of your nasty secrets is an end in itself. Doesn't matter if it's public or not.

Or, if you want to say that being public or not is somehow a constraint on what knowledge is revealed, or perhaps how it is revealed, then you are going to have actually defend your position on every other similar constraint that you might want to place--or not place--on the revealing of knowledge. In light of these (rather obvious) observations, simply saying "it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible" proves absolutely nothing. We are discussing whether there should be an exception to this general rule. You already concede that there should be some exceptions.

I concede the exception is that private information about people has to be kept private. By WP and by anyone else.

I don't concete the exception that already worldwide published information about a play has to be kept restrained by Wikipedia (and, judging at what it is said here, by WP only, apparently: why don't you launch a campaign to remove the ending from the whole Internet?).

The two things do not compare by any standard. In one case we're talking of something that's no one's business, that is released nowhere, and unverifiable. In the other, we're talking of a famous book, a famous play,published worldwide in thousands of copies. You get the difference?

Wait, wait. You aren't replying. The rest of the Internet isn't Wikipedia, and you haven't established that the killer's identity is readily available all over the Internet anyway--so all that is a silly red herring, a dodge, an attempt not to reply to the basic point. So let me repeat it and give you another chance to dodge reply:

If you want to say that being public or not is somehow a constraint on what knowledge is revealed, or perhaps how it is revealed, then you are going to have actually defend your position on every other similar constraint that you might want to place--or not place--on the revealing of knowledge. In light of these (rather obvious) observations, simply saying "it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible" proves absolutely nothing. We are discussing whether there should be an exception to this general rule. You already concede that there should be some exceptions. We have given a truly excellent reason for why there should be spoiler warnings on egregious spoilers like the whodunit of The Mousetrap: it ruins the experience for the audience who hasn't seen it, and a lot of people won't know that a spoiler might be coming if you don't tell them. As far as I can tell, you don't have any reply to this at all. Saying, "I personally would assume that an encyclopedia article on the play might have spoilers" is not a response, because it isn't about you (unless you're a grown-up adolescent narcissist), it's about serving an international, highly diverse readership, who (again) might not share your provincial, idiosyncratic assumptions.

Now, what is your cowardly dodge response to this? Bear in mind, I am holding you to the logical standards someone who actually has a Ph.D. at Cambridge would be expected to be able to fulfill. In other words, I expect an actual response, or else I will go into full-on mockery and dismissal mode. You have been warned.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 6:58pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:46pm) *

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 6:33pm) *


So? Knowledge is an end in itself, not a means. That means our knowledge of all of your nasty secrets is an end in itself. Doesn't matter if it's public or not.

Or, if you want to say that being public or not is somehow a constraint on what knowledge is revealed, or perhaps how it is revealed, then you are going to have actually defend your position on every other similar constraint that you might want to place--or not place--on the revealing of knowledge. In light of these (rather obvious) observations, simply saying "it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible" proves absolutely nothing. We are discussing whether there should be an exception to this general rule. You already concede that there should be some exceptions.

I concede the exception is that private information about people has to be kept private. By WP and by anyone else.

I don't concete the exception that already worldwide published information about a play has to be kept restrained by Wikipedia (and, judging at what it is said here, by WP only, apparently: why don't you launch a campaign to remove the ending from the whole Internet?).

The two things do not compare by any standard. In one case we're talking of something that's no one's business, that is released nowhere, and unverifiable. In the other, we're talking of a famous book, a famous play,published worldwide in thousands of copies. You get the difference?

Wait, wait. You aren't replying. The rest of the Internet isn't Wikipedia, and you haven't established that the killer's identity is readily available all over the Internet anyway--so all that is a silly red herring, a dodge, an attempt not to reply to the basic point. So let me repeat it and give you another chance to dodge reply:

If you want to say that being public or not is somehow a constraint on what knowledge is revealed, or perhaps how it is revealed, then you are going to have actually defend your position on every other similar constraint that you might want to place--or not place--on the revealing of knowledge. In light of these (rather obvious) observations, simply saying "it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible" proves absolutely nothing. We are discussing whether there should be an exception to this general rule. You already concede that there should be some exceptions. We have given a truly excellent reason for why there should be spoiler warnings on egregious spoilers like the whodunit of The Mousetrap: it ruins the experience for the audience who hasn't seen it, and a lot of people won't know that a spoiler might be coming if you don't tell them. As far as I can tell, you don't have any reply to this at all. Saying, "I personally would assume that an encyclopedia article on the play might have spoilers" is not a response, because it isn't about you (unless you're a grown-up adolescent narcissist), it's about serving an international, highly diverse readership, who (again) might not share your provincial, idiosyncratic assumptions.

Now, what is your cowardly dodge response to this? Bear in mind, I am holding you to the logical standards someone who actually has a Ph.D. at Cambridge would be expected to be able to fulfill. In other words, I expect an actual response, or else I will go into full-on mockery and dismissal mode. You have been warned.


Just for the record: I took my Ph.D. in Italy, not in Cambridge. I'm here for a postdoctoral fellowship.

Now, since you talk about logic, this is all about assumptions (axioms, so to say) and consequences from that. You start by attributing me a wrong axiom:

QUOTE
"it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible"


while my axiom is:

QUOTE
it is public, notable information, and we want public and notable information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible


See? Public and notable is part of the axiom.
If this wasn't clear, then I apologize.

There are lots of reasons to not want private and unnotable information go public, and I am sure you know them well. And it's not what encyclopedias are for to show.

There also a lot of reasons to desire public and notable information to be presented in an encyclopedia: and also, that's what encyclopedias are for.

Is it clearer now?

(Oh, and please, go into your
QUOTE
full-on mockery and dismissal mode.
. That's what makes of you a person willing to have a reasonable conversation, I suppose.)

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:07am) *

while my axiom is:

QUOTE
it is public, notable information, and we want public and notable information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible


See? Public and notable is part of the axiom.
If this wasn't clear, then I apologize.

There are lots of reasons to not want private and unnotable information go public, and I am sure you know them well. And it's not what encyclopedias are for to show.

There also a lot of reasons to desire public and notable information to be presented in an encyclopedia: and also, that's what encyclopedias are for.

Is it clearer now?

No. "Public" and "notable" are almost infinitely elastic concepts, suitable for gaming either way by those whose interests are at stake.

Your birthdate is on file somewhere in Italy, thus public, as also your ancestry. You will argue that it's not notable, but you're wrong. The fact that I'm interested in it, makes it notable for ME. And it's ME that is important. Me. Me. Me.

I think your bio and photo should up on the web with your birthdate, all the info your alumni association has about you, plus anything else I collect about anything you've ever done outside the four walls of your house, where you had no expectation of privacy. Your credit history is public-- I can legally buy it (wanna bet?).

And all of this should be summarized, indexed, and Google-connectable to you, whenever anybody looks at anything you ever accomplish, ever again in your life.

And we'll keep it up for your family after you're dead, too. Especially the naughty bits.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 10:00am) *

Ultimately, the reason they're so intransigent in defense of the new policy against spoiler warnings has nothing whatsoever to do with "NPOV"; they're simply dead-set against acknowledging the legitimate interests of their users, interests which might impose some independent constraints on how they do their work.

Legitimate interests of their readers, is what I suspect you meant to say there...

We should note that Mr. Cyclopia is clearly somewhat of an extremist on issues like this (i.e., he thinks of "inclusionism" as a legitimate content-management philosophy rather than a red herring meant to legitimize the "information must be free" quasi-libertarian approach to website building). His point seems to be that you'd expect to find spoiler warnings, rollups, and non-inclusion on a review site or maybe even a news site, but not an encyclopedia, where you (in his opinion) expect to see everything, untrammeled.

It strikes me that this sort of attitude may be a result of having people like me constantly saying things like "it's not a real encyclopedia, it's just an encyclopedia-like website," or worse (it's a "big lake of shit," for example). So their reaction is we must be as much like a real encyclopedia as possible, even to the point of not improving on a real encyclopedia's way of doing things.

In other words, this issue could be just as easily be interpreted the other way: Spoiler rollups would be an improvement over the way something like this would be handled in a paper encyclopedia, but if implemented, Wikipedia would be less like a paper encyclopedia, therefore it must not be implemented. The same holds true for popouts, popups, colored text, and extra tags for content-filtering in general. And yet, time and time again, we see how "controversial" sections of articles are "off-loaded" to subpages. This is almost exactly the same thing, and yet there's no problem with doing that, in most cases.

Just as a personal disclaimer, one of the reasons I'm interested in this issue is because of something that happened on Uncyclopedia in 2006. There was (and still is) and article called "Euroipods" that one of the administrators thought was such a ridiculously obvious and stupid spam attempt that it was funny purely on that basis, and he decided it should be featured on the main page - which caused a huge fuss, because at least half of the users didn't have that reaction and thought it should be deleted, not featured. As a side-effect, the fuss caused the article to be lengthened to an absurd extent, causing it to lose even its original dubious humor value (i.e., one of the reasons it was funny was because it was so short). It also began to be used by certain admins as a means of getting revenge on users they disliked, by including their user names in the article against their wishes.

I saw fairly quickly that since the admins weren't going to relent without a way to save face, a rollup was the common-sense compromise solution to practically the whole situation. So, I lobbied to have the rollup extension installed, and once it was working, I made almost all but the original article a rollup - and it turned out that I was right. The fuss died down, pretty much everyone backed off, and the rollup is still there, to this day, four years later.

Anyhoo, I guess all I'm saying is that people invent things like rollups for a reason - and Wikipedia should embrace things like rollups, not reject them for being "non-encyclopedic." And FWIW, I can essentially guarantee that the reasons people say WP isn't a real encyclopedia have nothing to do with the presence (or lack) of rollups.

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 20th September 2010, 10:35am) *

Quote of the year! laugh.gif

Indeed, he gets the top-line blurb link for that one. Congrats, Doc! smile.gif

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:11am) *
...Wikipedians, who (like this alleged Cambridge man) fancy themselves committed to the unvarnished truth, are above such piddling conventions. They prove their superiority by flouting the convention, just like any adolescent nonconformist.

Another good way of putting it. It's an example of mass narcissism in action, really - those rules and conventions don't apply to us, we're an encyclopedia is basically the same "not our fault" mode of thinking as, "it's the parent's responsibilty to filter inappropriate content" or "if the person doesn't want his personal details to be anonymously edited by anyone whatsoever, he/she shouldn't have become 'notable' in the first place."

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:14pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:07am) *

while my axiom is:

QUOTE
it is public, notable information, and we want public and notable information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible


See? Public and notable is part of the axiom.
If this wasn't clear, then I apologize.

There are lots of reasons to not want private and unnotable information go public, and I am sure you know them well. And it's not what encyclopedias are for to show.

There also a lot of reasons to desire public and notable information to be presented in an encyclopedia: and also, that's what encyclopedias are for.

Is it clearer now?

No. "Pubic" and "notable" are almost infinitely elastic concepts, suitable for gaming either way by those whose interests are at stake.

Your birthdate is on file somewhere in Italy, thus public, as also your ancestry. You will argue that it's not notable, but you're wrong. The fact that I'm interested in it, makes it notable for ME. And it's ME that is important. Me. Me. Me.

I think your bio and photo should up on the web with your birthdate, all the info your alumni association has about you, plus anything else I collect about anything you've ever done outside the four walls of your house, where you had no expectation of privacy. Your credit history is public-- I can legally buy it (wanna bet?).

And all of this should be summarized, indexed, and Google-connectable to you, whenever anybody looks at anything you ever accomplish, ever again in your life.

And we'll keep it up for your family after you're dead, too. Especially the naughty bits.


And that's because of the creepy guys like you who threat people of something like that just because they happen to disagree, just to make a point, that I leave this thing again. Go on, pat on your back, each other.

I have to remember that next time that I attempt to reason here.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:22am) *

And that's because of the creepy guys like you who threat people of something like that just because they happen to disagree, just to make a point, that I leave this thing again. Go on, pat on your back, each other.

I have to remember that next time that I attempt to reason here.

Yeah, it's using logic and pointing out bad consequences, just to make a "point." Not only "creepy" but on Wikipedia, actually illegal.

Go back there. You have faith in the pillars of Wikipedia like Ottava has in the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. You'll never examine your own premises no matter what shit I shove your nose into.

Posted by: Larry Sanger

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyclopia , the last quotation on the page:

“ Wikipedia really, truly does not care what the real-world consequences of distributing verifiable, educational information are (or might be). Someone else may have a problem with Wikipedia providing 'potentially harmful' educational information -- but we don't, full stop. ”
— WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This is no more than posturing. Someone who says this (or quotes it) is merely congratulating himself (or herself) on an unwavering commitment to knowledge and reason, and wants others to believe that he is extremely admirable for his courage in the face of the forces of ignorance. That is easy to say, but when you come down to it, there are exceptions, of course: bomb-making instructions, national secrets that cost lives, detailed descriptions of how still-young children were abused, the identity of the dead before their family is alerted, and more. And if you're really going to be brave and bite the bullet, then why not child pornography? We are told that drawings of pedophilia count as "educational information" of "historical" importance, you know--so why isn't actual child pornography "educational information" of "sociological" importance? The caricatured argument would go like this: "someone who is studying criminology, and who wants to catch pedophiles, might really need to know what actual child pornography is like"; and haven't we seen arguments just like this? But, no. Suddenly, when it comes to child pornography, there is An Exception. But--no, of course this isn't Educational! Really? Why?

Your declaring categorically that all "educational information" must be included in the encyclopedia sounds brave, but it is merely a silly, ridiculous exercise in self-congratulation. I think that commitment to knowledge and reason is demonstrated not through such declarations but through a whole pattern of behavior.

Posted by: dtobias

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.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:36pm) *

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.


Thus the resulting unpopularity thingy.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:26pm) *

That is easy to say, but when you come down to it, there are exceptions, of course:


Let's see:

QUOTE
bomb-making instructions,


Isn't explosive synthesis available on chemistry books?

QUOTE
national secrets that cost lives,


Not public knowledge by any standard, so not an appropriate comparison.

QUOTE
detailed descriptions of how still-young children were abused


If published, why should they be illegal? Ugly stuff, of course, don't count on me reading it, but: why?

QUOTE
the identity of the dead before their family is alerted,


Again, usually not public information.

QUOTE
And if you're really going to be brave and bite the bullet, then why not child pornography? We are told that drawings of pedophilia count as "educational information" of "historical" importance, you know--so why isn't actual child pornography "educational information" of "sociological" importance? The caricatured argument would go like this: "someone who is studying criminology, and who wants to catch pedophiles, might really need to know what actual child pornography is like"; and haven't we seen arguments just like this? But, no. Suddenly, when it comes to child pornography, there is An Exception. But--no, of course this isn't Educational! Really? Why?


It would be educational, in principle, in the case you cite. But it is also illegal (I've discussed this previously in this thread) and it is of course a gross violation of privacy: that's why it's an exception.

(In theory, if someone used a, say, XIX-century CP image for such a documentation purpose, with full knowledge that the depicted persons are dead, and they are not identified in any way; then it could be perhaps fine.)

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:36am) *

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.

Hence Spock. Alas, logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell... bad.

It's not just a geek mindset, it's generally a child's mindset. It's the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget's_theory_of_cognitive_development that in Piaget comes before "formal operations." It's totally rule-driven and damn the consequences. It's one reason why pre-teens and computers go together better than you'd have thought at first guess. One accepts the rules without question-- they are never held "lightly" in the mind as "tentatively good, but subject to replacement or modification on new evidence."

Moulton, though it pains me to say it, is right about societies maturing through these same phases, just as humans do. Some never get past the black and white rule-driven binary "fundamentalist" stage.

And of course, some people never do, either. unhappy.gif Since formal operations are the last stage in mental maturity, you'd have to expect that a lot of people get stuck before that. Also, it's very handy to rulers for them never to make it out (even narcissists, in some ways stuck even in the stage before the concrete one, sometimes never make it past concretes in the rest of their thinking. But they find ways that the rigid rules don't apply to THEM).

I've had a glimpse of a stage past formal ops, which I occasionally see in very smart people who've lived a long time. But I think you have to be past a stage to clearly see it, and so I can't tell you much about it, much less define it. But by inductive construction (a little like adding dimensions in geometry) I think Stage V has something to do not only with easily playing with rules (stage IV), but with a meta-mode of easily playing with "rules about rules." Including social rules. ohmy.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:41pm) *


It's not just a geek mindset, it's generally a child's mindset. It's the stage that comes before "formal operations." It's totally rule-driven and damn the consequences. It's one reason why teenagers and computers go together better than you'd have thought at first guess.

Moultin, though it pains me to say it, is right about societies maturing through these same phases, just as humans do. Some never get past the black and white rule-driven binary "fundamentalist" stage.



The first paragraph is a good definition of "socially stunted." This explains a lot about WP.

You need not have achieved "enlightenment" or succeeded in completing a developmental stage in order to talk about it. In fact it can be a barrier in a persons progress, as is evidenced with Moulton, who seems positively mired in "authority" issues.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:36pm) *

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.


I am informally quite Asperger (never diagnosed officially, but I score 35 at the AQ test (T-H-L-K-D), which is the average score for diagnosed Asperger/autism.)

Can this help your theories on what's wrong with my mind? dry.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:50am) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:36pm) *

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.


I am informally quite Asperger (never diagnosed officially, but I score 35 at the AQ test (T-H-L-K-D), which is the average score for diagnosed Asperger/autism.)

Can this help your theories on what's wrong with my mind? dry.gif

No, it was already quite apparent. But thanks.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:51pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:50am) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:36pm) *

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.


I am informally quite Asperger (never diagnosed officially, but I score 35 at the AQ test (T-H-L-K-D), which is the average score for diagnosed Asperger/autism.)

Can this help your theories on what's wrong with my mind? dry.gif

No, it was already quite apparent. But thanks.


AS seems to be the disorder anyone can edit.

Posted by: Larry Sanger

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 2:07pm) *

Just for the record: I took my Ph.D. in Italy, not in Cambridge. I'm here for a postdoctoral fellowship.


So you say. (Yes, I know, I didn't word that clearly.)

QUOTE

Now, since you talk about logic, this is all about assumptions (axioms, so to say) and consequences from that. You start by attributing me a wrong axiom:

QUOTE
"it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible"


while my axiom is:

QUOTE
it is public, notable information, and we want public and notable information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible


See? Public and notable is part of the axiom.
If this wasn't clear, then I apologize.


It wasn't clear. I quote:

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 5:44pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 19th September 2010, 10:10pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Sun 19th September 2010, 2:03pm) *

...most importantly, information has value in itself. It's an end, not a mean.

Are you sure you really, really mean to say that information is an end, not a mean? I suspect you're using a different definition of the word "information" than most people use, and that's me being charitable.


It's probably my awkward English coming into play (I'm not native-English speaking, I'm an Italian horse-eating barbaric thing, remember?) but what I mean is that knowledge (perhaps a better term) has a value per se, disconnected from practical use, and that as such it is an end. Probably it is my mind-set: I am a researcher, and my job is all about digging knowledge for knowledge's sake.


Knowledge, you say, is valuable for its own sake. Then, in defense of yourself, you make an exception: it is not valuable for its own sake when it is not public. I observe that this is an exception to your general rule. How do you reply? With--of course--a dodge. You say that your principle was not that knowledge is valuable for its own sake, but only public knowledge is. Apparently, an even higher end is served when your private information is kept from us. But this is, surely, an exception. After all, there is nothing about the publicness of knowledge that makes knowledge intrinsically valuable; its intrinsic value stems from the fact that it is knowledge, not that it is public. So, yes, it is an exception. And there are other exceptions, too: bomb-making instructions, to take just one. Here is a body of knowledge that, I have no doubt, one can find online (it's public in that sense). But should it be in Wikipedia? Um, no. Why not?

My point, which you keep dodging, is there are some exceptions to the general rule, which we agree with as far as it goes, that public knowledge presented directly is a good thing. But, clearly, we don't agree on what the exceptions are. I've explained why I think one can make an exception, just for the direct part, for spoilers. And your response is?

To insist that there is a general rule.

Ridiculous.

EDIT: OK, I've wasted enough time here today. TTYL!

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 2:39pm) *

QUOTE
detailed descriptions of how still-young children were abused


If published, why should they be illegal? Ugly stuff, of course, don't count on me reading it, but: why?


Cyclopia, I would like to assist Wikipedia with an article about Carolyn Doran. She was the subject of a significant amount of public news (national television via ABC News, major world newspapers, etc.) in 2007. She was also in the news (but to a lesser extent, as it only made it to the Washington Post) in 1990. All of the detailed descriptions are there, regarding what she did.

But, Wikipedia refuses to allow publication of these details in a biographical article about her.

Why is that?

Surely, the identity of the murderer in "The Mousetrap" was never the feature of a story telecast on ABC News, was it?

Posted by: Larry Sanger

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 20th September 2010, 2:16pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 20th September 2010, 10:35am) *

Quote of the year! laugh.gif

Indeed, he gets the top-line blurb link for that one. Congrats, Doc! smile.gif

You are too kind!

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:53pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 2:07pm) *

Just for the record: I took my Ph.D. in Italy, not in Cambridge. I'm here for a postdoctoral fellowship.
So you say. (Yes, I know, I didn't word that clearly.)


It's true. It doesn't take so much as one may think to go here: you need a decent publication record and to win a fellowship or some other funding thing (which isn't trivial, but it isn't also impossible).

It is a wonderful town where to live, but the workplace is hell in disguise. Never seen such a competitive place. Nobody talks with nobody else. People are literally scared of discussing science with each other for fear someone will steal your data (there have been several nasty cases of that).

QUOTE
Now, since you talk about logic, this is all about assumptions (axioms, so to say) and consequences from that. You start by attributing me a wrong axiom...
...(snip)...
My point, which you keep dodging, is there are some exceptions to the general rule, which we agree with as far as it goes, that public knowledge presented directly is a good thing. But, clearly, we don't agree on what the exceptions are. I've explained why I think one can make an exception, just for the direct part, for spoilers. And your response is?

To insist that there is a general rule.

Ridiculous.

Ok, now it is clearer where the misunderstanding comes from.

Yes, I agree that there may be exceptions. I told it explicitly above: I make an exception for private and unpublished information (let's say "not widely, openly published" so the creep above doesn't feel justified in buying my credit record). It is pretty obvious why, and again, I admitted explicitly it above. In general, it has little to no public value while, instead, it can be harmful. And it would imply a change of situation: publishing what is not published is an action itself, with consequences.

Personal knowledge is a very delicate thing, as everyone here on WR knows very well. And it's reasonable to make exceptions for this, theoretical and practical: as I said before, I support for example pending changes/semiprotection on WP for all BLPs.

(While I am an inclusionist, if it was felt that BLPs were more dangerous than anything else, I would even go as far to remove all BLPs from WP, if needed. I don't feel it is necessary, and I think -perhaps wrongly, but I've found no contrary statistics- the BLP thing is blown out of proportion: but at least it would be a consistent and fair rule. What I can't abide is stuff like "opt out", that would lead us to have only agiographies).

Now, let's talk about already public knowledge. Let's talk about things like scientific knowledge, literature, philosophy, languages or even daily boring news. This is stuff that it is 1)Already available and found in public libraries or databases, so there is no active "digging out" effort 2)That has an academic and philosophical value per se, as the sum of what, basically, makes us human: awareness of our universe and of ourselves.

Now, you talk about the bomb instructions. I would be OK with them on Wikipedia. For two reasons:

1) I understand that "how to make bombs" is dangerous stuff. But "how to make bombs" is also, sadly, a critical part of our history and technology. This is why it is dangerous but precious information. It has enormous academic interest.
2) You say that it is already public to find on the Internet. So, basically, it would be only useless to remove such stuff from WP. It's already in the open. Why should we close the barn after the horse (or whatever it is in English)? If it wasn't public information, I would say "ok, it's not public stuff, perhaps better keeping it not public": point 1 wouldn't have precedence. But it is, already, so it is just silly to close your eyes and pretend it isn't. At this point, point 1 takes precedence.

(BBcode fucked again, sigh)

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 20th September 2010, 8:09pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 2:39pm) *

QUOTE
detailed descriptions of how still-young children were abused


If published, why should they be illegal? Ugly stuff, of course, don't count on me reading it, but: why?


Cyclopia, I would like to assist Wikipedia with an article about Carolyn Doran. She was the subject of a significant amount of public news (national television via ABC News, major world newspapers, etc.) in 2007. She was also in the news (but to a lesser extent, as it only made it to the Washington Post) in 1990. All of the detailed descriptions are there, regarding what she did.

But, Wikipedia refuses to allow publication of these details in a biographical article about her.

Why is that?

Surely, the identity of the murderer in "The Mousetrap" was never the feature of a story telecast on ABC News, was it?


I understand what you mean (yes, there is hypocrisy and stuff like that on WP, I would never deny that). I'll have a look at the AfD's and see.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 8:21pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 20th September 2010, 8:09pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 2:39pm) *

QUOTE
detailed descriptions of how still-young children were abused


If published, why should they be illegal? Ugly stuff, of course, don't count on me reading it, but: why?


Cyclopia, I would like to assist Wikipedia with an article about Carolyn Doran. She was the subject of a significant amount of public news (national television via ABC News, major world newspapers, etc.) in 2007. She was also in the news (but to a lesser extent, as it only made it to the Washington Post) in 1990. All of the detailed descriptions are there, regarding what she did.

But, Wikipedia refuses to allow publication of these details in a biographical article about her.

Why is that?

Surely, the identity of the murderer in "The Mousetrap" was never the feature of a story telecast on ABC News, was it?


I understand what you mean (yes, there is hypocrisy and stuff like that on WP, I would never deny that). I'll have a look at the AfD's and see.


Well, no, there is not a bio on her only, but what you talk about seems covered pretty much here:


QUOTE
In January 2007, Carolyn Doran was named chief operating officer and Sandy Ordonez came on board as head of communications.[29] Doran began working as a part-time bookkeeper in 2006 after being sent by a temporary agency. Doran later left the foundation in July 2007, and Sue Gardner was hired as consultant and special advisor (later CEO). Some months after Doran's departure, it was determined[30] that she was a convicted felon, with a DUI arrest during her tenure at the foundation and a substantial criminal history, including shooting her boyfriend and complicity in credit card forgery.[31] Her departure from the organization was cited as one of the reasons the foundation took about seven months to release its fiscal 2007 financial audit.[32]


and that's where Carolyn Doran (T-H-L-K-D) redirects.

(On a completely unrelated note: Does this place have an IRC channel?)

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 3:28pm) *

I understand what you mean (yes, there is hypocrisy and stuff like that on WP, I would never deny that). I'll have a look at the AfD's and see.

Well, no, there is not a bio on her only, but what you talk about seems covered pretty much here:


QUOTE
In January 2007, Carolyn Doran was named chief operating officer and Sandy Ordonez came on board as head of communications.[29] Doran began working as a part-time bookkeeper in 2006 after being sent by a temporary agency. Doran later left the foundation in July 2007, and Sue Gardner was hired as consultant and special advisor (later CEO). Some months after Doran's departure, it was determined[30] that she was a convicted felon, with a DUI arrest during her tenure at the foundation and a substantial criminal history, including shooting her boyfriend and complicity in credit card forgery.[31] Her departure from the organization was cited as one of the reasons the foundation took about seven months to release its fiscal 2007 financial audit.[32]



and that's where Carolyn Doran (T-H-L-K-D) redirects.


"Seems covered pretty much" is not what I am aiming for, nor should you be satisfied with merely that. Wikipedia can and must be more comprehensive with the information. It is not enough to just have the basic info about The Mousetrap, it must reveal the murderer, too! I am trying to help people who are looking for very detailed information about the public and notable figure Carolyn Doran to:

(1) Not have to sift through a much larger article about the Wikimedia Foundation to find the portion about Carolyn Doran.

(2) Learn all of the details about where she shot her boyfriend (in his chest), that he was the father of her child, that he survived the chest wound, and that he dropped all charges against Doran. Learn all of the details about how her future husband would drown in a snorkeling accident on their Caribbean honeymoon. Learn how she cooperated with prosecutors to wear a wire and record conversations between her and her ex-roommate to entrap the roommate into admitting to a murder. Learn that her DUI arrest was made actionable only when she left the country (on Wikimedia Foundation business).

There is so much more there, why would you ever, ever settle for a re-direct that "seems covered pretty much"?

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:29am) *


Offending readers is not something that can be taken into account when dealing with encyclopedias. Encyclopedias collect notable facts and notable opinions. They should not invent anything: they should collect what exists. If the existence of something offends you, it's not the encyclopedia problem: it is your problem.



Crock of shit. Wikipedia doesn't mind offending others but won't countenance the least possibility that some of its editors might be offended. Apparently my user name on wiki was so offensive it has to be blocked which means that they've turned down 1000s of images to illustrate the articles.

Should I ask for a change to something like NoMoreImagesForYou?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:51pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:50am) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:36pm) *

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.


I am informally quite Asperger (never diagnosed officially, but I score 35 at the AQ test (T-H-L-K-D), which is the average score for diagnosed Asperger/autism.)

Can this help your theories on what's wrong with my mind? dry.gif

No, it was already quite apparent. But thanks.


Assuming that your self diagnosis is correct you seem to have a nominal identification of the problem without any insight whatsoever. If you are aware that you are subject to a cognitive deficit (or being a "syndrome" one or more of a number of possible deficits) and you have large remaining areas of intactness (obviously) why not moderate your position taking into account the impact of the deficit? Surely if you had no depth perception or balance you would make appropriate accommodations. But you (and WP collectively) pursue positions that impacts the lives of others without making any kind of adjustment. Self-diagnosed AS folks seem to ignore the disabling nature of the syndrome and want to regard it as some some kind of special ability. There are serious cognitive deficits even in the "mild" part of the continuum.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:04am) *

It's like buying a pint of hydrocloric acid, drinking it, then complaining it burned your throat. That's not the use it was supposed for.

Are you against warning labels on acid bottles, too?

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 20th September 2010, 8:47pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:29am) *


Offending readers is not something that can be taken into account when dealing with encyclopedias. Encyclopedias collect notable facts and notable opinions. They should not invent anything: they should collect what exists. If the existence of something offends you, it's not the encyclopedia problem: it is your problem.



Crock of shit. Wikipedia doesn't mind offending others but won't countenance the least possibility that some of its editors might be offended. Apparently my user name on wiki was so offensive it has to be blocked which means that they've turned down 1000s of images to illustrate the articles.

Should I ask for a change to something like NoMoreImagesForYou?


I find it pretty ridicolous that they blocked you for that username, but... why can't you use another one?

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 20th September 2010, 8:52pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:51pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:50am) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:36pm) *

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.


I am informally quite Asperger (never diagnosed officially, but I score 35 at the AQ test (T-H-L-K-D), which is the average score for diagnosed Asperger/autism.)

Can this help your theories on what's wrong with my mind? dry.gif

No, it was already quite apparent. But thanks.


Assuming that your self diagnosis is correct you seem to have a nominal identification of the problem without any insight whatsoever. If you are aware that you are subject to a cognitive deficit (or being a "syndrome" one or more of a number of possible deficits) and you have large remaining areas of intactness (obviously) why not moderate your position taking into account the impact of the deficit? Surely if you had no depth perception or balance you would make appropriate accommodations. But you (and WP collectively) pursue positions that impacts the lives of others without making any kind of adjustment. Self-diagnosed AS folks seem to ignore the disabling nature of the syndrome and want to regard it as some some kind of special ability. There are serious cognitive deficits even in the "mild" part of the continuum.


Rest assured that it is not a special ability. AS or whatever it is, it is pretty annoying. I am almost completely unable to deal in eye contact with people I am not completely acquainted with (and even in this case it is difficult) and it leads to a lot of "I didn't get that non verbal signal" awkward situations.

(Now you can have your schadenfreude).


QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 20th September 2010, 8:53pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:04am) *

It's like buying a pint of hydrocloric acid, drinking it, then complaining it burned your throat. That's not the use it was supposed for.

Are you against warning labels on acid bottles, too?


No. But what do you think of some adult person drinking, knowingly, hydrochoric acid?

(Admittedly I knew a dude who was said he did regularly, in the Department of Chemistry. He diluted it to a non-dangerous concentration and used it to help his digestion. Don't know how true it is, but it was funny).

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 2:50pm) *


I am informally quite Asperger (never diagnosed officially, but I score 35 at the AQ test (T-H-L-K-D), which is the average score for diagnosed Asperger/autism.)

Can this help your theories on what's wrong with my mind? dry.gif


Oh. I was under the impression that you were just a plain old ninny. ermm.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:00pm) *

No. But what do you think of some adult person drinking, knowingly, hydrochoric acid?

(Admittedly I knew a dude who was said he did regularly, in the Department of Chemistry. He diluted it to a non-dangerous concentration and used it to help his digestion. Don't know how true it is, but it was funny).

Could have been true if he diluted it 100 to 1. (From stock 10 M down to physiologic stomach 0.1 M).

Still, I'd like to see his teeth after a few years of this. tongue.gif

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:36pm) *

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?

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:08pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:00pm) *

No. But what do you think of some adult person drinking, knowingly, hydrochoric acid?

(Admittedly I knew a dude who was said he did regularly, in the Department of Chemistry. He diluted it to a non-dangerous concentration and used it to help his digestion. Don't know how true it is, but it was funny).

Could have been true if he diluted it 100 to 1. (From stock 10 M down to physiologic stomach 0.1 M).

Still, I'd like to see his teeth after a few years of this. tongue.gif


Yes, 0.1 M was the reported dilution.


Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:12pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:08pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 1:00pm) *

No. But what do you think of some adult person drinking, knowingly, hydrochoric acid?

(Admittedly I knew a dude who was said he did regularly, in the Department of Chemistry. He diluted it to a non-dangerous concentration and used it to help his digestion. Don't know how true it is, but it was funny).

Could have been true if he diluted it 100 to 1. (From stock 10 M down to physiologic stomach 0.1 M).

Still, I'd like to see his teeth after a few years of this. tongue.gif


Yes, 0.1 M was the reported dilution.

If any drink ever needed a "chaser," that would be it. yak.gif

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:11pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:36pm) *

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.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 8:54pm) *


I find it pretty ridicolous that they blocked you for that username, but... why can't you use another one?


Because that is the Nym I choose to release stuff under that can be used commercially.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:19pm) *

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.


Is there an equivalent of Formosa's Law for this site?

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:19pm) *

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.

They're not hidden. They're in plain view on your user page:

QUOTE
"Wikipedia really, truly does not care what the real-world consequences of distributing verifiable, educational information are (or might be). Someone else may have a problem with Wikipedia providing 'potentially harmful' educational information -- but we don't, full stop."

Those are the sentiments of a sociopath.
QUOTE

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.

Logically.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:00pm) *

Rest assured that it is not a special ability. AS or whatever it is, it is pretty annoying. I am almost completely unable to deal in eye contact with people I am not completely acquainted with (and even in this case it is difficult) and it leads to a lot of "I didn't get that non verbal signal" awkward situations.

(Now you can have your schadenfreude).

That explains the attraction to Wikipedia. smile.gif Not much eye contact there. It is different if you don't have to look the people you hurt in the eye.

By the way, did you find that missed cues became a bigger problem after you moved to England? Just out of anthropological interest.

Anyway guys, give the man a coconut, just for having the guts to stick it out here and argue his case.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:51pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:00pm) *

Rest assured that it is not a special ability. AS or whatever it is, it is pretty annoying. I am almost completely unable to deal in eye contact with people I am not completely acquainted with (and even in this case it is difficult) and it leads to a lot of "I didn't get that non verbal signal" awkward situations.

(Now you can have your schadenfreude).

That explains the attraction to Wikipedia. smile.gif Not much eye contact there. It is different if you don't have to look the people you hurt in the eye.

By the way, did you find that missed cues became a bigger problem after you moved to England? Just out of anthropological interest.


Don't know if it's the cues, but I find it almost impossible to get in a non-trivial friendship with UK people. My Italian collegues (there's plenty of Italians here in Cam), and other Italian/Spanish people I know living in UK report the same.

UK people are extremly polite and nice, but that's it. They seem not interested in catching up and pursuing a friendship further than "hi, howdya" and small talk. At least, that's what it looks like to us Italians. It is possible that we're missing culturally-different cues, indeed.

Luckly I found an Italian girlfriend.

Anyway, if someone of you lives near Cambridge (in London or the like), and it is interested indeed in a conversation on the topic, let me know.

QUOTE

Anyway guys, give the man a coconut, just for having the guts to stick it out here and argue his case.


Thanks for the coconut! Sincerely, even if you think I am a sociopath. smile.gif

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:59pm) *

Thanks for the coconut! Sincerely, even if you think I am a sociopath. smile.gif

Not really. Just cursed with excess enthusiasm. tongue.gif

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 3:19pm) *
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... 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.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 20th September 2010, 10:19pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 3:19pm) *
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... 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 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? http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://giornaledimontesilvano.com/politica/2907-breccia-porta-pia-uaar-qtrattenuti-dalla-digos-schedati-e-allontanatiq.html&ei=bdGXTKNOwsHiBuSayeAE&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CC8Q7gEwBA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Duaar%2Bporta%2Bpia%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26prmd%3Div.

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.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:30pm) *
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 this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're treating art as mere "information" - and that's bad; there's more to art than that. You should read some Martin Heidegger or maybe an Albert Camus novel or two. In the case of, say, a painting or a poem, the art, i.e., the thing itself, is apparent by seeing, or simply reading, the work. But in the case of a whodunit, or some kinds of musical performance, or "performance art" in general, the experience is the key thing. It has a transcendental quality that is horribly cheapened by treating it as mere information.

This is the thing that Wikipedia doesn't respect, because Wikipedians self-select towards being non-creative researchers and aggregators of facts, data and minutiae. That should be perfectly fine, though - it's expected, even preferable to having the whole thing written by "creatives." But a real encyclopedia would still have more respect for artists, and its editors would better understand the existential underpinnings of culture and their place in it.

You could almost go even further, and say that the inclusion of the spoiler with no rollup or warning shows disrespect for the reader more than it would otherwise, because it assumes the reader who is viewing the article is incapable of appreciating the work of art as such and is therefore reading an encyclopedia article about it rather than actually experiencing it directly. That may well be true in many cases, but does that make it less disrespectful?

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 20th September 2010, 10:49pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:30pm) *
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 this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're treating art as mere "information" - and that's bad; there's more to art than that. You should read some Martin Heidegger or maybe an Albert Camus novel or two. In the case of, say, a painting or a poem, the art, i.e., the thing itself, is apparent by seeing, or simply reading, the work. But in the case of a whodunit, or some kinds of musical performance, or "performance art" in general, the experience is the key thing. It has a transcendental quality that is horribly cheapened by treating it as mere information.


I have read a couple Camus novels; I tried also to read some Heidegger stuff long time ago but I found it gibberish in disguise.

However I completely agree with you on the point that experience is the key thing etc. Absolutely.

But encyclopedias are not meant to do that: they are meant exactly to treat it as mere information. Of course it "cheaps" the thing, but it is irrelevant, completely, because the point of an encyclopedia is not that of help your enjoyment, is that of giving you, duh, mere information.

Again, to me it seems that many complaints with WP is because you expect from it something that it is not meant to be. You are asking the hammer to be the screwdriver. It isn't. "But couldn't you make it more screwdriver-like so that we people who like to use screws instead of nails are happier?". Hell, no. It is a damn hammer. If you need a screwdriver, go and use a screwdriver.

And the link I provided in the discussion proved that for example film fans actually understand that and understand that spoilers are to be expected. Because if they don't want to know, they simply avoid to read. You can avoid to read Wikipedia. It seems this is a concept hard to grasp here (perhaps to be expected, given that it's explicitly a Wikipedia-obsessed site) but you really can.

QUOTE
This is the thing that Wikipedia doesn't respect, because Wikipedians self-select towards being non-creative researchers and aggregators of facts, data and minutiae. That should be perfectly fine, though - it's expected, even preferable to having the whole thing written by "creatives."


Agreed.

QUOTE
But a real encyclopedia would still have more respect for artists, and its editors would better understand the existential underpinnings of culture and their place in it.

You could almost go even further, and say that the inclusion of the spoiler with no rollup or warning shows disrespect for the reader more than it would otherwise, because it assumes the reader who is viewing the article is incapable of appreciating the work of art as such and is therefore reading an encyclopedia article about it rather than actually experiencing it directly. That may well be true in many cases, but does that make it less disrespectful?


Uhm, no. It only assumes that the reader, in that moment, wants to read an encyclopedia article. A very basic assumption, I'd say, for encyclopedia articles.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:07pm) *

Uhm, no. It only assumes that the reader, in that moment, wants to read an encyclopedia article. A very basic assumption, I'd say, for encyclopedia articles.

And what should you assume about a reader who is looking for an encyclopedia article - that they are one of the few thousand dysfunctional editors or one of the many millions of readers of an encyclopedia.

This is the crux of the matter. Wikipedians have no concept of what the audience is. You have an assumption that the audience for Wikipedia is made up of Web 2.0 Wikipedian lookalikes, whereas our premise is that the majority of users are the ordinary people we mix with in the real world.

Why would I want to look at an encyclopedia article about a murder mystery. I want to know basic facts:

- who wrote it and when.
- how long it has been running in the West End
- was it well received critically - considered to be their finest work (perhaps I am considering where to delve into the genre.

I would not expect an article in an encyclopedia to be a comprehensive synopsis of the story, certainly not to the point of giving more than a vague setting. For example, if I was writing a review of a mystery that had a plot remarkably like Hansel and Gretel, convention would have it that it would probably be ok to reveal that the story revolved around some children getting lost in the woods, but revealing that there was a witch involved and that there were ovens and nastiness at the end would be considered wrong.

This is not like considering the actual Hansel and Gretel which is very much part of our common shared culture and we are expected to know, as adults, this childhood tale (but as adults we wouldn't expect to go to a child and say "Let's read Hansel and Gretel where the children murder a witch rather than giving her a fair trial in a court of law").

I would have said that you are an extremist, only there is precious little evidence on Wikipedia that you are in that context.

The fundamental error in your reasoning is that you cannot conceive that there are differing points of view within the readership. There are the goldfish-like youth who really are not interested in devoting more than a few seconds to any experience; but in the real world there remain some old fossils who have a naive view that Wikipedia conforms to real world conventions such as "Don't spoil it for others". When someone asks "What did you think of Salt" there are a miriad of ways of describing the film to give someone a sense of whether they'd be interested, but the one golden rule is don't tell the plot twists and endings. For example, I'd describe it as The Bourne Supremacy with a female lead and feel a little guilty about what twists that might give away, so I'd probably stick with it being like a Bourne film.

Anyhow, there is already an encyclopedia for films on Teh InterWeb - IMDb, and do you know what, the reason it is considered a good resource is that it sticks to the conventions, and does not seek to give away the plot of a film; the user forum is a bit of an exception, but people usually flag up when they are talking about what happens.

It is not unusual. A football match has a result, but people want to hide from the result. The BBC, when doing football scores at times other than the traditional Saturday results programme, tell people that the scores are going to be on and sometimes will not even voice over the results.

So the point is, in the real world, normal people expect others to respect the conventions that respect other people's enjoyment. The fact that Wikipedians think it is appropriate to flout those conventions when there are multiple easy ways of configuring around it shows a contempt for others.

I'll tell you what. I think it would be very interesting for Robert Harris to weigh in on this one, as respect for the readership was one of his core principles for the controversial content review, and I think, as someone who shows signs of being based in the real world, he would be really bemused that deliberately spoiling people's enjoyment for a single-minded pursuit of force feeding information could be considered controversial rather than a no-brainer.

Posted by: Larry Sanger

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 20th September 2010, 3:53pm) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:04am) *

It's like buying a pint of hydrocloric acid, drinking it, then complaining it burned your throat. That's not the use it was supposed for.

Are you against warning labels on acid bottles, too?

laugh.gif Perfect response!

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:14pm) *

Again: you seem to reason like people is forced to look Wikipedia. But it isn't the case.


On a level playing field, people wouldn't visit Wikipedia. The website with the best article would appear at the top of the search results, and people would go there.

Unfortunately, for various reasons (technical and financial), that doesn't happen.

In the meantime, it's up to critics to explain to the public why they shouldn't click on that Wikipedia link, even though it comes up near the top of the list, and why they should prevent their children from reading Wikipedia.

This Moustrap incident is just one more example of why readers should avoid Wikipedia.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Remembering in every disagreement, there is much one might agree with the other parties ... Isn't it a primary source to rely on the original play and therefore disqualifiable under arcane Wikipedia rules?

I've seen the argument used in 10,000 other conflcts. (Of course, an "argument" on the Wikipedia is rarely little more than gamesmanship to promote a POV by someone who does not know the topic to be won by the most time investing obsessive or nearest cabal. How can you really build an encyclopedia with people who really don't know their subjects and with no editorial overview?)

QUOTE
Join the millions who have already discovered whodunnit, but will not share their secret...

That, and the length of the play's run, is the only notable thing about it. So where are the secondary sources revealing the murderer? 'The Complete Christie: An Agatha Christie Encyclopedia' does not have it.

Cyclopedia, I don't think you are a bad person and I think even you as a genuine academic can see the shortcomings and messy, hectoring puerility in much of the Wikipedia and wrestle with them too.

A better example than child porn - which the Pornopedia is still wrestling with - might be homemade explosives. Let's upload the Anarchist Cookbook ... I mean, a recipe of how to make a bomb never killed anyone.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 21st September 2010, 2:15am) *

Remembering in every disagreement, there is much one might agree with the other parties ...

Isn't it a primary source to rely on the original play and therefore disqualifiable under arcane Wikipedia rules?

I've seen the argument used in 10,000 other conflcts. (Of course, an "argument" on the Wikipedia is rarely little more than gamesmanship to promote a POV by someone who does not know the topic to be won by the most time investing obsessive or nearest cabal. How can you really build an encyclopedia with people who really don't know their subjects and with no editorial overview?)
QUOTE
Join the millions who have already discovered whodunnit, but will not share their secret...

That, and the length of the play, is the only notable thing about it.

So where are the secondary sources revealing the murderer? 'The Complete Christie: An Agatha Christie Encyclopedia' does not have it.

Cyclopedia, I don't think you are a bad person and I think even you as a genuine academic can see the shortcomings and messy, hectoring puerility in much of the Wikipedia and wrestle with them too.

Plot summaries are an exception; WP allows accessing the primary source for those.

But the question of secondary sources did come up. Two secondary sources were mentioned that discussed the ending. One was a specialist 2500-page cyclopedia of fictional characters, aimed at writers, which cost several hundred dollars and had an amazon sales rank of 2 million +. The other was "A Teacher's Guide to Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap and Other Plays", only available as a http://us.penguingroup.com/static/pdf/teachersguides/mousetrap.pdf on the Penguin US website.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:19pm) *

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.

Why not the photos themselves, ideally at 300px, so readers have maximum information about the precise nature of the injuries? They might want to know.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Tue 21st September 2010, 2:35am) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:19pm) *

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.

Why not the photos themselves, ideally at 300px, so readers have maximum information about the precise nature of the injuries? They might want to know.


I think there are copyright issues about that, so 300px pics in the article don't seem an option. I hate the copyright paranoia surrounding WP, but there's little to do with that -copyright has the law on its side. One could call for fair use, but, given the apparent consensus on the article, I guess it's pragmatically hard to get consensus for such a thing.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st September 2010, 2:12am) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:14pm) *

Again: you seem to reason like people is forced to look Wikipedia. But it isn't the case.


On a level playing field, people wouldn't visit Wikipedia. The website with the best article would appear at the top of the search results, and people would go there.

Unfortunately, for various reasons (technical and financial), that doesn't happen.

In the meantime, it's up to critics to explain to the public why they shouldn't click on that Wikipedia link, even though it comes up near the top of the list, and why they should prevent their children from reading Wikipedia.

This Moustrap incident is just one more example of why readers should avoid Wikipedia.


And why "it's up to critics to explain"? If WP makes the masses cry in pain because of a spoiler, shouldn't they go disgusted to another side, or build another one?

Heck, the http://conservapedia.com did just that! hmmm.gif

(I fully understand that it isn't at all as simple for other things, like factual accuracy or POV -but in this case it seems an issue that should be clear-cut, since you argue that it outrages the public, so it should only be obvious that the public should steer away, if you are right, without any need to "explain" while spoilers or gangrene pics are bad)

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:59pm) *

Luckly I found an Italian girlfriend.


Okay, now the conversation gets interesting. What we need is photographic evidence...preferably snapshots taken at the beach. And does she like horses? evilgrin.gif

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 21st September 2010, 2:15am) *

Cyclopedia, I don't think you are a bad person and I think even you as a genuine academic can see the shortcomings and messy, hectoring puerility in much of the Wikipedia and wrestle with them too.


Of course I do. My reaction is one of cowardice, if you may want to say so: I usually steer away from such stuff. I wouldn't touch climate changes articles with a km-long stick, for example.

I tried to help to compromise the craziness that is around historicity of jesus (T-H-L-K-D) , with POV-pushers on both sides (on one side people telling me with a straight face that there's nothing POV in sourcing the historicity of Jesus only with Christian sources; on the other hand people who just wanted to push Christ myth theory (T-H-L-K-D) as fact); but when a fragile equilibrium seemed to be reached, it crumbled after a few days, and then I threw hands up. Judging on my watchlist, it seems it is in a perpetual state of turmoil, but I don't want to deal with that anymore until the dust settles a bit. I simply don't have the persistence for that stuff.



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 21st September 2010, 3:27am) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:59pm) *

Luckly I found an Italian girlfriend.


Okay, now the conversation gets interesting. What we need is photographic evidence...preferably snapshots taken at the beach. And does she like horses? evilgrin.gif


We've never gone to the beach together (it's something we both dislike I guess , and UK beaches are, how to say? freezing?) About horses... well, yes, she liked Yorkshire horses, but I doubt she would ever ride one, sorry...

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 10:20pm) *

And why "it's up to critics to explain"? If WP makes the masses cry in pain because of a spoiler, shouldn't they go disgusted to another side, or build another one?

Heck, the http://conservapedia.com did just that! hmmm.gif

(I fully understand that it isn't at all as simple for other things, like factual accuracy or POV -but in this case it seems an issue that should be clear-cut, since you argue that it outrages the public, so it should only be obvious that the public should steer away, if you are right, without any need to "explain" while spoilers or gangrene pics are bad)


When aware of the facts, individuals make decisions that are in their own self-interest. Not everything is obvious. Critics serve a purpose.

I don't hate Wikipedia. Jimbo pioneered this stuff. He's still the champ.

I started my own encyclopedia to fill the need for a friendlier place that was easier to use and a bit more reader-oriented. It's called http://encyc.org.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:50pm) *

I would not expect an article in an encyclopedia to be a comprehensive synopsis of the story, certainly not to the point of giving more than a vague setting.

When I was younger I would read the back covers of tape-cases at the local video rental and decide whether I wanted to rent a particular film. Anymore I've realized the shit is wholly meaningless and any correlation (between how much the ad copy interests me and how much the film interests me) means somebody fell down on the job, and probably got fired for it.

I'd hate to see WP articles degenerate toward that level. I still tend to turn there first when deciding whether a film is worth attending or renting. This is partly because I've found professional film reviewers (from Ebert all the way down to Horsey) gush too much with indescript vaguery to be readable beyond the proclaimed number of stars and/or thumbs. I suspect some are http://www.pakin.org/complaint/, actually.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st September 2010, 3:50am) *

I started my own encyclopedia to fill the need for a friendlier place that was easier to use and a bit more reader-oriented. It's called http://encyc.org.


I know -I have an account there as well, even if it sits pretty much unused. As for "friendlier", well, it seems it is mostly a repository of stuff on WP drama...

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:19pm) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st September 2010, 3:50am) *

I started my own encyclopedia to fill the need for a friendlier place that was easier to use and a bit more reader-oriented. It's called http://encyc.org.


I know -I have an account there as well, even if it sits pretty much unused. As for "friendlier", well, it seems it is mostly a repository of stuff on WP drama...


I thought your name sounded familiar. I'm surprised you think Encyc is filled mainly with WP drama, but I don't want to hijack this thread... we can talk elsewhere.

Anyway, everyone lay off Cyclopia. This guy's alright.

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st September 2010, 4:30am) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:19pm) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st September 2010, 3:50am) *

I started my own encyclopedia to fill the need for a friendlier place that was easier to use and a bit more reader-oriented. It's called http://encyc.org.


I know -I have an account there as well, even if it sits pretty much unused. As for "friendlier", well, it seems it is mostly a repository of stuff on WP drama...


I thought your name sounded familiar. I'm surprised you think Encyc is filled mainly with WP drama, but I don't want to hijack this thread... we can talk elsewhere.


No problem. It is not necessarily a critic, but http://encyc.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians , on http://encyc.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_socks etc...

QUOTE

Anyway, everyone lay off Cyclopia. This guy's alright.


Hey, you are the third guy in a row that is acknowledging I am not some swerve-eyed incarnation of evil, and just a guy with some (perhaps misguided, who knows? I have been known to be wrong) opinions. Have I passed the WR mob-rule test? Or do I have yet to repeat three times AHRRRRR! I HATE JIMBOOOOH! before? Or, who knows, pissing on his picture, or something? biggrin.gif

Seriously: I am happy to be pushed under heavy criticism and to discuss with people who think the opposite to me. That's why, despite the not-exactly-nice treatment I've been submitted, I stayed here. Larry was harsh but indeed made me think, for example. It's when you (generic) start to think that I must have some evil or idiot hidden agenda that conversation becomes moot, because what's the point of conversation with people who think you are a liar/troll/whatever? I hope things have improved from that, a bit?

Posted by: tarantino

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=List_of_notable_plot_twists&diff=prev&oldid=383723292

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 21st September 2010, 12:10am) *

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=List_of_notable_plot_twists&diff=prev&oldid=383723292


Plot Twits № 1729 ……… Pierre Salinger was really right all along.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

A lot of this again also comes down to marketing and underlines how dumb the collective ignorance of 'teh' community is. One or even 10 asshole volunteers stridently defend their ideal. It hits the mass media and real world as bad press. Today The Mousetrap, yesterday some Bollywood starlet. It all masses up, "don't trust the Wikipedia".

Unlike in a real business, the asshole volunteers do not have to pay, the owners and directors do not have to pay, as it sinks. But bad PR costs. In a real business, a more mature person would just say, "not worth the cost. let's play the game".

Adolescent quasi-ideals versus bad PR. Adolescent quasi-ideals win every time. Corporate policy decided by individuals with no experience, no qualifications, no responsibility, no buy-in. If it sinks, they export their obsession elsewhere.

The handful of idealist claim to represent the consensus as the public impression of the Wikipedia goes down the shitter again.

It can only happen so many time.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:57pm) *



Hey, you are the third guy in a row that is acknowledging I am not some swerve-eyed incarnation of evil, and just a guy with some (perhaps misguided, who knows? I have been known to be wrong) opinions. Have I passed the WR mob-rule test? Or do I have yet to repeat three times AHRRRRR! I HATE JIMBOOOOH! before? Or, who knows, pissing on his picture, or something? biggrin.gif




Well, you seem to be without guile. I don't think you're completely responsive and are way to easy on yourself (and Wikipedia) in terms of accepting responsibility rather than shifting it off on others. In particular I think you have not replied in any meaningful way to Larry Sanger's comments. You also haven't really replied to my own comments about the need to moderate your position to compensate for the whole in your world view caused by the cognitive deficits of AS. But that is not the kind of thing that anyone would accept right away, if at all.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st September 2010, 2:12am) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:14pm) *

Again: you seem to reason like people is forced to look Wikipedia. But it isn't the case.


On a level playing field, people wouldn't visit Wikipedia. The website with the best article would appear at the top of the search results, and people would go there.

Unfortunately, for various reasons (technical and financial), that doesn't happen.




I think this is because Google has given up on effectively indexing the web. Having realized that 90% of it is low grade nonsense it mostly chucks paid links first, then wikipedia being as its not much worse then the rest of the crap, and then anything goes after that.




Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 11:57pm) *

Hey, you are the third guy in a row that is acknowledging I am not some swerve-eyed incarnation of evil, and just a guy with some (perhaps misguided, who knows? I have been known to be wrong) opinions. Have I passed the WR mob-rule test? Or do I have yet to repeat three times AHRRRRR! I HATE JIMBOOOOH! before? Or, who knows, pissing on his picture, or something? biggrin.gif


Your parents give you your real name, but you pick your heroes.

Maybe you should work on http://s3-external-1.amazonaws.com/wootsaleimages/Woot_Cellars_Polyphemus94fDetail.jpg.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Cyclopia

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 21st September 2010, 6:07am) *

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Mon 20th September 2010, 9:57pm) *



Hey, you are the third guy in a row that is acknowledging I am not some swerve-eyed incarnation of evil, and just a guy with some (perhaps misguided, who knows? I have been known to be wrong) opinions. Have I passed the WR mob-rule test? Or do I have yet to repeat three times AHRRRRR! I HATE JIMBOOOOH! before? Or, who knows, pissing on his picture, or something? biggrin.gif




Well, you seem to be without guile. I don't think your completely responsive and are way to easy on yourself (and Wikipedia) in terms of accepting responsibility rather than shifting it off on others. In particular I think you have not replied in any meaningful way to Larry Sanger's comments. You also haven't really replied to my own comments about the need to moderate your position to compensate for the whole in your world view caused by the cognitive deficits of AS. But that is not the kind of thing that anyone would accept right away, if at all.


Larry hit a number of good points. I still think that there is a qualitative abyss between private, personal information and public information, but in the end it is possible that it boils down to arbitrary assumptions one makes at start. I don't think it is just that, and when dealing with encyclopedias I am sure it is a flawed example (private info is not what encyclopedias share, period): but I am aware the logics of my answers was thin. I am still thinking about that.

About your comments, well, first of all remember that I've never been diagnosed formally with AS -it's just a simple test (even if a real one used to help diagnosis). I just posted that because the "geek personality" thing is something that indeed I have, and I wanted to throw a bone at you people to play with (like "see? it's true that I am a mentally disturbed person as you like to think, after all!"). Second, in any case: it's hard to rationally "compensate" for something that, in first place, you don't even know how it works/exists. But I do, at times.

Once I was at a one-day course about Myers-Briggs (T-H-L-K-D) organized by the university. I don't know if Myers-Briggs is total bullshit or not -it just sounded fun, it was free and there was free food smile.gif If anyone cares, it seems I am INTP (T-H-L-K-D) (which indeed fits quite well my personality, even if there is probably a kind of horoscope effect). I remember one of the questions the guy asked to "separate" our personality types was:

"A friend knocks at your door at 3 a.m. You wake up upset, you find your friend in tears, visibly shocked. What do you do immediately? Do you hug your friend, or do you ask him what's going on?"

I immediately answered "I hug him". It turned out the answer was at odds with my "personality type" thing, but then I said "Well, my honest reaction would be that of asking what's going on: but I've learned from experience that in such situations it is not the best thing to do. So I would hug the friend, even if my brain screams "WHY FOR FUCK'S SAKE ARE YOU CRYING?" "

I guess that's "compensate".

Posted by: dtobias

I come out as an INTJ on those tests.

I'd hug the friend, but also wonder what the heck was going on.

Posted by: dogbiscuit


Mod note: Horsey's inappropriate off-topic ramblings moved to the Support Forum

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 21st September 2010, 1:20pm) *

Mod note: Horsey's inappropriate off-topic ramblings moved to the Support Forum


Sorry about that, Dogbiscuit. unhappy.gif

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 21st September 2010, 5:04pm) *
Oh, who let him in here? hrmph.gif

I dont know but given the choice between his wife or the horse, I'd take the nag.

Here you go ... more negative PR.
QUOTE
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/business/media/18spoiler.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1284931453-Cougj2fpRsBoD+tJX2gG5g

At the end of each performance of the Agatha Christie play “The Mousetrap,” the person revealed to be the murderer steps forward and tells the audience to “keep the secret of whodunit locked in your heart.”

Even after 58 continuous years of performances in the West End of London, the play’s twist ending has been largely preserved by reviewers, guidebook writers and the great bulk of the estimated 10 million people who have seen the play.

Matthew Prichard told the British newspapers late last month that he was dismayed to learn that Wikipedia could not keep a secret.

“I don’t pretend to be an expert on Wikipedia or modern technology,” he told The Independent. “All I can tell you is that from the point of view of the theatergoing public, I think it does spoil the enjoyment of those going to have an entertaining evening at the theater — one part of which is to guess who the murderer is.”

As Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the foundation that operates Wikipedia, put it: “Generally it appears most Wikipedians support the notion that encyclopedias are often exhaustive when it comes to facts, and someone searching for an article about a story should be prepared to encounter a summary of the plot.”

QUOTE
The musician and mystery writer Rupert Holmes was less forgiving of Wikipedia’s penchant for exposing his twists, whether in songs like “Escape (The Piña Colada Song)” or the mystery musical “Curtains.”

“The rules of ‘full disclosure’ don’t apply to fictional creations,” he wrote in an e-mail. “If you give away the secret of a masterful magic trick, it is not as if you are protecting naïve consumers from wasting their money on a con artist. We want, even hope to be tricked, surprised, stunned. An illusionist is not selling us swamp land, miracle cures, junk bonds or Ponzi schemes. He is selling us the childlike thrill of believing, for one moment, that there really could be magic in the world.”

He also questioned the motives of someone eager to report the surprise in a creative work, whether on a personal blog or a collaborative project like Wikipedia — calling the achievement, at best, “a momentary sense of superiority.”

“It’s the self-aggrandizing vandalism of another person’s potential pleasure. It’s spray-painting your name across the face of the Mona Lisa and thinking you’re one up on Da Vinci.”

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Tue 21st September 2010, 5:10am) *

Once I was at a one-day course about Myers-Briggs (T-H-L-K-D) organized by the university. I don't know if Myers-Briggs is total bullshit or not -it just sounded fun, it was free and there was free food smile.gif If anyone cares, it seems I am INTP (T-H-L-K-D) (which indeed fits quite well my personality, even if there is probably a kind of horoscope effect). I remember one of the questions the guy asked to "separate" our personality types was:

"A friend knocks at your door at 3 a.m. You wake up upset, you find your friend in tears, visibly shocked. What do you do immediately? Do you hug your friend, or do you ask him what's going on?"

I immediately answered "I hug him". It turned out the answer was at odds with my "personality type" thing, but then I said "Well, my honest reaction would be that of asking what's going on: but I've learned from experience that in such situations it is not the best thing to do. So I would hug the friend, even if my brain screams "WHY FOR FUCK'S SAKE ARE YOU CRYING?" "

I guess that's "compensate".

Please note that these tests are "normed" on Wisconsin farmers or American College students or something, and some cultural biases creap in. An Italian man is far more likely to hug a male friend to give comfort than in lots of other societies, particular in America were we recognize that this is very gay, so we don't do it. smile.gif Okay, maybe a side hug, or a frontal hug if you keep the hips well apart. And no ass-grabbing, such as you Italian men do, even with random female strangers.

That's probably why it's didn't "fit" with the rest of your profile. It's just that the test is parochial. They should modify that question.

Helpfully,

Milton

Posted by: WikiWatch

No need to buy the book. Wikipedia has it covered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_Cool_One_%28novel%29

laugh.gif

Posted by: RHeterodyne

Earlier today, I was reading an article about some fiction novel. And someone posted in the talk, something like "Uhhh, this gives away THE ENTIRE PLOT. There should be a spoiler warning or something."

I responded something like "Certainly not; including the entire plot, spoilers and all, is Wikipedia's house style." After reading through this thread (well, the parts that weren't about the MBTI), I actually still stand by it, even though I'm not a fan of Wikipedia's "information diarrhea right onto your face" paradigm.

Rollup spoiler sections might be OK, but they don't seem very like the way Wikipedia does things, to me. Wikipedia is at its best when it delivers a concise, but complete synopsis of the entire plot of a work. I do think it ought to be a little more obvious that if you want to read about a literary work without spoilers, this is not the site to go to.

I actually think that's a perfectly OK standpoint, even though I'm a BLP extremist, along the lines of "nearly all BLPs ought to be deleted." I'm not sure how those two viewpoints tie together.

Maybe that BLPs harm people, or have a strong risk of harming people, but (I feel) presenting the entire plot of a work is something that can validly be expected from a website that claims to be what Wikipedia claims to be.

In short, I guess I'm saying that with plot synopses, people simply ought to know better than to go to Wikipedia?

Posted by: KD Tries Again

QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:11pm) *

Why should this play have any more (or less) protection against spoilers than any other suspenseful work of fiction?

SNAPE KILLED [censored]!
[censored] IS LUKE'S FATHER!
SOYLENT GREEN IS [censored]!
ROSEBUD IS [censored]!


Because it's a cash cow for the estate which has successfully established in the popular mind that the denouement is extraordinary and must be kept secret (although Christie uses a similar device in several novels).

In truth, it's not a very good play whether you know the solution or not - but that's the reason for the fuss.