The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

9 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Wikipedia ruins "The Mousetrap" by giving away the ending...., ...and gets a mention on French Radio tonight....
the fieryangel
post Wed 1st September 2010, 8:18pm
Post #1


the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577



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 :

QUOTE
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...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Thu 2nd September 2010, 3:19am
Post #2


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 1st September 2010, 8:18pm) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Thu 2nd September 2010, 4:38am
Post #3


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daily Mail article)

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: Thu 2nd September 2010, 4:40am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:11pm
Post #4


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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]!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
taiwopanfob
post Thu 2nd September 2010, 11:21pm
Post #5


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 12:21pm
Member No.: 214



QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:11pm) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 3rd September 2010, 3:11am
Post #6


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 6:11pm) *

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]

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 3rd September 2010, 3:39am
Post #7


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 7:21pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:11pm) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Fri 3rd September 2010, 4:51am
Post #8


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 3:11am) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 6:11pm) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jayvdb
post Fri 3rd September 2010, 5:28am
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed 28th Feb 2007, 2:15am
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 3:39am) *

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 7:21pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:11pm) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Fri 3rd September 2010, 5:36am
Post #10


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 5:28am) *

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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jayvdb
post Fri 3rd September 2010, 6:25am
Post #11


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed 28th Feb 2007, 2:15am
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 5:36am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 5:28am) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
taiwopanfob
post Fri 3rd September 2010, 2:23pm
Post #12


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 12:21pm
Member No.: 214



QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 5:28am) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Fri 3rd September 2010, 3:01pm
Post #13


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jayvdb
post Sat 4th September 2010, 1:48am
Post #14


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed 28th Feb 2007, 2:15am
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 2:23pm) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 5:28am) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Sun 12th September 2010, 8:24pm
Post #15


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 4:39am) *

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. biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Sun 12th September 2010, 8:37pm
Post #16


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 1st September 2010, 9:38pm) *

QUOTE(Daily Mail article)

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.... 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 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Sat 18th September 2010, 2:11am
Post #17


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Useful article in the New York Times today. I must say I did enjoy Holmes' (Rupert, not Sherlock) comment:
QUOTE
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: Sat 18th September 2010, 2:12am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 18th September 2010, 3:36am
Post #18


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 17th September 2010, 7:11pm) *

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: Sat 18th September 2010, 3:40am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sat 18th September 2010, 12:00pm
Post #19


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 17th September 2010, 11:36pm) *

(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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Sat 18th September 2010, 4:41pm
Post #20


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 18th September 2010, 5:00am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 17th September 2010, 11:36pm) *

(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!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 12 14, 11:12pm