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]

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.

[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:

[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).

[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.

[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?)

[Somey]

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.

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?

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."

...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?

...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.

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.

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?

(What happened with the bbcode?)

Sorry, Gomi was trying something there. I, uh, fixed it... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Cyclopia]

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:

the reader isn't going to feel disrespected because an encyclopedia entry fails to provide the twist ending to a whodunit.

not to:

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?

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.

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.

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.

...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.

...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.

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.

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?)

[Somey]

...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.

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.

...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.

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! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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.)

...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.

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?

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...?

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?)

(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!

[Cyclopia]

...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.

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.

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.

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."

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! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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.

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.

...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)

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).

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.

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! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

This post has been edited by Cyclopia:

[HRIP7]

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?