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. (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?