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]

It's part of the "geek mindset" (I know because I am one myself) that the abstract logical consistency of ideas and actions is of greater relevance than whatever real-world consequences the actions and ideas might have -- after all, the real world is messy, illogical, inconsistent, and full of annoying human beings, and hence is clearly inferior to the abstract logical plane.

[HRIP7]

It's part of the "geek mindset" (I know because I am one myself) that the abstract logical consistency of ideas and actions is of greater relevance than whatever real-world consequences the actions and ideas might have -- after all, the real world is messy, illogical, inconsistent, and full of annoying human beings, and hence is clearly inferior to the abstract logical plane.

Quite. It's just a sign of immaturity, of not having lived long enough to realise that logical consistencey doesn't mean shit. I recommend marriage as an antidote. That takes care of it quite effectively.

I imagine the subconscious train of thought goes something like this:

"Oy, you may rule out there, but you don't rule here, do ya? We rule! You don't, like, want us to put this in? Well, watch me! This is an En-Cy-Clo-PEE-Dia, and we're gonna, like, just do whatever we want, and there's nothing you can do about it."

The last part of this is, of course, right.

This knee-jerk reaction gets dressed up with abstract arguments about the value of information, and knowledge, but underneath that's what it is. People get stuck at that response, and don't progress beyond it to actually look at the situation from more than one perspective.

The only time I remember Wikipedia actually stepping back from the brink was in the Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy (T-H-L-K-D).

What about this one, Cyclopia? Would you like to have the pictures back in that article, or is there a limit to your logical consistency? After all, Wikipedia should not really care about the parents' feelings, should it?

[Cyclopia]

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.

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.

[HRIP7]

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.