Wikipedia ruins "The Mousetrap" by giving away the ending...., ...and gets a mention on French Radio tonight.... Options

[the fieryangel]

Wikipedia puts the ending of Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" on the play's article.... and the Christie heirs are pissed.

The issue is discussed ad naseum by the usual cast of Wikipediots...

Among the gems in the discussion :

It would seem best to me, in order to avoid controversy and still provide the requested information, to create a "Killer in Agatha Christie's 'The Mousetrap'" article, move the entire plot spoiler there and then reference it in the introduction to the article. In this way, the final wishes of the author are upheld (and a fundamental part of the play's structure) and Wikipedia gets to post everything just as before.--eleuthero (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't do that for other articles and we shouldn't do it for this one. If you don't want to know the plot, don't read the plot section of the article (or maybe don't read the article at all). --Two Bananas (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This would just be another form of spoiler, and would still be covered by WP:SPOILER. If a section called "Identity of the murderer" isn't enough of a clue to the reader that the identity of the murderer is about to be revealed, an article entitled "Killer in Agatha Christie's 'The Mousetrap'" presumably wouldn't help them much either (and could even be worse, if they got there from a Google search and the one-paragraph article got straight to the point). I'm not sure how hiding the ending behind a link would uphold Christie's final wishes any more closely - the Telegraph article suggests that her grandson considers it a "pity" when any reference work includes the plot in its entirety. --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Or they could just not include the spoiler in the article...

[dtobias]

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]!

[taiwopanfob]

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.

[Abd]

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.

[HRIP7]

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 tried, but got soundly defeated. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Somey]

Well, I tried, but got soundly defeated. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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.

[HRIP7]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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 Gangrene 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?

[Cyclopia]

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 Gangrene 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.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[dogbiscuit]

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 Gangrene 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.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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.

[Cyclopia]

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.


This post has been edited by Cyclopia:

[thekohser]

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?

[thekohser]

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?

[Cyclopia]

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?

[thekohser]

...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!

[Cyclopia]

...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.

[thekohser]

...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.

[Cyclopia]

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.

[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.

This post has been edited by Larry Sanger: