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...

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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.

[CharlotteWebb]

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 any film adaptation thereof. 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".

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[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.

[thekohser]

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]

[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.

[CharlotteWebb]

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.

[jayvdb]

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.

[CharlotteWebb]

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?

[jayvdb]

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.

[taiwopanfob]

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.

[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.

[jayvdb]

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.

[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)

[Milton Roe]

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 any film adaptation thereof. 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.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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.

[HRIP7]

Useful article in the New York Times today. I must say I did enjoy Holmes' (Rupert, not Sherlock) comment:

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.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[EricBarbour]

Useful article 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-turned-mediocre-playwright 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.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[thekohser]

(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?

[Milton Roe]

(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!

[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.

[CharlotteWebb]

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

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?

[Milton Roe]

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

Which part? If you don't like any of the story above, I've got something else. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[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!

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.

[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?

[SarekOfVulcan]

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?a...id=135705273259

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

This post has been edited by SarekOfVulcan:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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.

[EricBarbour]

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.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Michaeldsuarez]

Wikipedia could do what Wookieepeda does

The Neoseeker wikis have a spoiler tag.

There also a MediaWiki extension.

[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:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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?

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.

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock of Vulcan

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Cyclopia]

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).

[dogbiscuit]

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.

[Cyclopia]

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.

[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?

[Somey]

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.

[Somey]

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"?

[Cyclopia]

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.

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) )

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.

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.

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?)