Wikipedia ruins "The Mousetrap" by giving away the ending...., ...and gets a mention on French Radio tonight.... Options

[carbuncle]

Oh, I think Cyclopia knows this "truth." He just doesn't care about other people's feelings, pleasure, or enjoyment. That's what you're missing.

You assume all sympathy fails at the point of understanding, and mostly, in this world, you're right. But in a few rarer cases, empathy fails and a later and more scary spot, up the chain from mere knowledge and understanding. The actor knows exactly what "the other" is feeling; he just doesn't give a shit.

Doesn't care what others are feeling? You make Cyclopia sound like some kind of Fascist!

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Mon 20th September 2010, 4:20pm

[Larry Sanger]

I don't pretend that this isn't the case, nor I ignore it.

Simply, in the case of an encyclopedia, I expect spoilers to be present, in plain view, because giving me a resonably complete plot summary it's one of the things that are not only expectable, but desirable in an encyclopedia article.

Obviously, very few people agree--indeed, people outside of Wikipedia commenting on this issue appear to be united in saying they hate the fact that there are no spoiler warnings (at a minimum). Unlike you, they don't want to be told, without a very clear warning, the ending of the story. You get that, right?

So, on the one hand, you are pretending to give "a reasonably clear plot summary," in the interests of revealing the full unvarnished truth in the service of humanity, but on the other hand, you are imposing your own idiosyncratic and annoying views of what humanity wants to know, and how they want it known to them.

I said without reason: let's specify, without an encyclopedic reason. I expect encyclopedias to help me find reasonably complete information on a topic, not to help to "appreciate a whodunit". An encyclopedia is a tool for a certain purpose (having complete summary of information on a topic). You talk of using encyclopedias for the wrong purpose (enjoy a play). There is an old proverb in Italy that says: "non puoi avere la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca". I don't know the English equivalent, it translates roughly as "you can't have both a drunk wife and a full barrel".

Are you familiar with the weird English concept of a reasonable compromise?

[A Horse With No Name]

Doesn't care what others are feeling? You make Cyclopia sound like some kind of Fascist!

Does Cyclopia think Clara Petacci was a good looking broad?

[Cyclopia]

Oh, I think Cyclopia knows this "truth." He just doesn't care about other people's feelings, pleasure, or enjoyment. That's what you're missing.

You assume all sympathy fails at the point of understanding, and mostly, in this world, you're right. But in a few rarer cases, empathy fails and a later and more scary spot, up the chain from mere knowledge and understanding. The actor knows exactly what "the other" is feeling; he just doesn't give a shit.

Doesn't care what others are feeling? You make Cyclopia sound like some kind of Fascist!

Lol. I am not. I happen to have a curiosity about far right movements and ideologies, but I am definitely a left-wing guy. In particular, I find nationalism utterly meaningless (even if fascinating to study). I am curious about that stuff for two reasons 1)Because it's miles apart from my worldview, and as such I am intrigued by it 2)Because it's really underdocumented.

[Milton Roe]

Lol. I am not. I happen to have a curiosity about far right movements and ideologies, but I am definitely a left-wing guy. In particular, I find nationalism utterly meaningless (even if fascinating to study). I am curious about that stuff for two reasons 1)Because it's miles apart from my worldview, and as such I am intrigued by it 2)Because it's really underdocumented.

You can start by understanding that fascism is not "far right." It's just that "far right" is the only real insult that leftists know, and there's no movement leftists hate more than another leftist movement.

Left = big goverment and centralized control. It is right wing when business runs the government. Once government runs business, you'll already crossed the center line of the political divide. They didn't call it German SOCIALISM for nothing.

[Cyclopia]

I don't pretend that this isn't the case, nor I ignore it.

Simply, in the case of an encyclopedia, I expect spoilers to be present, in plain view, because giving me a resonably complete plot summary it's one of the things that are not only expectable, but desirable in an encyclopedia article.

Obviously, very few people agree--indeed, people outside of Wikipedia commenting on this issue appear to be united in saying they hate the fact that there are no spoiler warnings (at a minimum). Unlike you, they don't want to be told, without a very clear warning, the ending of the story. You get that, right?

I already linked a cinema blog, quite clearly populated by people who love to see movies and enjoy them, and let's see what they say:

"If I'm looking up a movie/book/whatever it's because I won't bother watching/reading it myself. I just want to know what happened"

"Absolutely, I agree. I do the same thing. Wikipedia should have all the facts. If you plan to see a film or read a book, you shouldn't be looking it up there. "

"I always check things out on Wikipedia to see if it might be the kind of thing I'm into, to see if it's worth my time.
If it has a PLOT SYNOPSIS, then I read it, if it has a PLOT SUMMARY, then I don't.
Simple. "

"Totally agree. The whole site is based around information. The notion that information be withheld is like looking up cajun style food and expecting them to not tell you the ingredients. That's why I'm looking it up, dammit!"

"Yupp, what exactly am I doing on Wikipedia if I've yet to see the film?

If you need a brief plot synopsis don't read the plot summary. Or go to IMDB."

"I'm on the pro-spoilers side here, if you don't want to know the plot of the film don't read the plot section, if you just want an outline then go to IMDB that's not what an encyclopedia is for. I think people forget that and go to Wikipeda for the wrong reasons and information.
That's just my opinion but I personally I go on the site after I've seen a film to get more information on it, sometimes it's difficult to give information on a film without spoiling it, that shouldn't stop them and they shouldn't have to spoiler tag it. "

"I agree, if your looking for information on a site like Wikipedia where its information is published in an encyclopaedic form, you can expect to find all of the information that can be gathered and verified laid out on the subject page - regardless of whether or not it has plot spoilers.
If you don't want to spoil it for yourself then don't visit these sites. Complaining about this seems foolish, it's your own fault if you think that a site like Wikipedia won't have spoilers. "

"I like how extensive they are. Frequently I go there to check that an absurd ending or plot twist for a film I don't want to see or pay for just to verify if it's true.
IMDB is for a synopsis, Wiki is for the whole damn thing."

"I agree. Many times I'll look up a book or movie on Wikipedia to remind myself of some plot detail that I can't remember, which is when having those spoilers is so important. Just mark the sections that contain. To some extent they already are: the intro to the article gives a quick synopsis and the plot summary part gives a detailed summary. As a rule, don't read the plot summary if you're worried about spoilers."

"Most definitely, if it was a film-centric site like IMDB then probably not, but it isn't "

There is of course a minority disagreeing, to which the answer is:

Yeah, as can be seen here, over 20 people here know how to go to a Wiki article and avoid being spoiled if they don't want to be. This is just really silly. OBVIOUSLY the plot section has "spoilers."

I also rely on Wiki for plot outlines of lots of things I'll never have the opportunity to be an actual audience to -- comics, books, movies, etc.

Go to Rotten Tomatoes for that information, or IMDB. Don't use Wiki for it. If you use the right tool for the job, you'll find it works better.

There are many reasons that a person would want to read through the entirety of a film's summary. Thus, there are many reasons to include the spoiler.
I feel that people are generally smart enough to KNOW that Wikipedia WOULD have the entire plot, and thus, the spoiler.
What does someone, who makes a fuss about this, expect to happen?

And it goes on:

All for the spoilers here. Go to IMDB if you don't want to know. Wikipedia shouldn't withhold facts because of people's entertainment.

It's a reference, not a movie review. It seems a moot subject. Yes, spoilers. Warnings? Ehh.

Of course there has to be spoilers. Otherwise it would be as if your reading an article about World War 2 that has no reference to who won or not, at risk of spoiling your epic read of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
It's an encylopedia. It's meant to have information. Censoring it would be stupid.

it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA! spoilers yes, warnings no! it's still made for normal people, who know what to expect from an ENCYCLOPEDIA and don't want to be bothered by others' fetishes!

If you don't want to be spoiled stay off the internet. It's not everyone else's responsibility for your movie going experience. I'm so sick of this argument on the /filmcast. If you don't want to be spoiled fine but don't expect people to bend over for you. You're and you're film watching habits are your own.

So... what you were saying about people united on the fact that they hate... what, sorry?

So, on the one hand, you are pretending to give "a reasonably clear plot summary," in the interests of revealing the full unvarnished truth in the service of humanity, but on the other hand, you are imposing your own idiosyncratic and annoying views of what humanity wants to know, and how they want it known to them.

I am not imposing anything. As a bunch of film-loving people showed you above, you are more than free not to read. Or not?

I said without reason: let's specify, without an encyclopedic reason. I expect encyclopedias to help me find reasonably complete information on a topic, not to help to "appreciate a whodunit". An encyclopedia is a tool for a certain purpose (having complete summary of information on a topic). You talk of using encyclopedias for the wrong purpose (enjoy a play). There is an old proverb in Italy that says: "non puoi avere la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca". I don't know the English equivalent, it translates roughly as "you can't have both a drunk wife and a full barrel".

Are you familiar with the weird English concept of a reasonable compromise?

Are you familiar with the even weirder concept of "if I don't want to know X, I will avoid to read about X"?

This post has been edited by Cyclopia: Mon 20th September 2010, 4:48pm

[Cyclopia]

Lol. I am not. I happen to have a curiosity about far right movements and ideologies, but I am definitely a left-wing guy. In particular, I find nationalism utterly meaningless (even if fascinating to study). I am curious about that stuff for two reasons 1)Because it's miles apart from my worldview, and as such I am intrigued by it 2)Because it's really underdocumented.

You can start by understanding that fascism is not "far right." It's just that "far right" is the only real insult that leftists know, and there's no movement leftists hate more than another leftist movement.

Left = big goverment and centralized control. It is right wing when business runs the government. Once government runs business, you'll already crossed the center line of the political divide. They didn't call it German SOCIALISM for nothing.

That's very true. It is called "far right" or "radical right" for sake of simplicity, but it encompasses a very different political spectrum from the "business runs the government" kind of right that became dominant in Western democracies post-WW II. Mussolini was born a socialist, after all.

The point is that of course "left" or "right" are nonsensical in themselves, because the political spectrum is multidimensional.

You should be fascinated by the "nazimaoists", a tiny weird movement that, at least in Italy was born from Franco Freda (T-H-L-K-D) teachings, and that advocated a sort of North Korean-like totalitarian state.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Obviously, there is a reason: revealing a significant spoiler ruins the show for people who haven't seen it. Not knowing the ending is crucial to appreciating a whodunit, of course.

Yeah, well, Larry ... you see ... we don't need reality anymore. Just a 34kb badly written, ever changing, POV document of it. Then were 'know' it. Its ours. We don't need to go and see it, let alone ask if we left it in a sustainable state (like other real world encyclopedias).

On the same topic, do they insist on spoiling every magic trick in the book too?

Cyclopia ... I was thinking more about the plot spoilers of your life. You know, the heartbreaks, the fuck ups, the really nasty things you did to other people, details of your dirty habits. That kind of stuff. The stuff that, as adults, we learn to filter out, keep private, not ask about.

Remember the Jimbo quote about how wonderful it would be if everyone had an openly editable online biography? "What's wrong with that?" or something.

I suppose this discussion is intersected by the other big one, "inclusionism versus deletionism". And, of course, there is censorship on a whim, "deletionizing", POV exclusionism.

This particular question is not about "offense". No one has claimed "offense". For me, it is just about something around tact, style and discretion.

What we are talking about here is The Mousetrap - "The longest running show in the world". If we have to expose it, then why cannot we expose you? Why does not the argument go two ways?

[Cyclopia]

What we are talking about here is The Mousetrap - "The longest running show in the world". If we have to expose it, then why cannot we expose you? Why does not the argument go two ways?

Because "The Mousetrap" is a book that you can buy in every bookshop for a few Euros, or read in every library. My parents had the book (I tried to read it as a kid but I found it very dull). It is already public, in every sense of the word.

My life is not published on any book, nor reported on any newspaper that I am aware of. So, it is private.

And make no mistake: I am openly against publishing private information about people. I am openly pro re-publishing already published and available information that comes in reasonably public sources (books, magazines, etc.)

When people will write my biography and publish it with a diffusion comparable to that of Agatha Christie works, we can talk about that.

This post has been edited by Cyclopia: Mon 20th September 2010, 5:03pm

[HRIP7]

I already linked a cinema blog, quite clearly populated by people who love to see movies and enjoy them, and let's see what they say:

Leaving aside the demographics of the people visiting this blog, and how representative they are of the general WP readership, the second-most popular comment on the topic is this one:

Yes by all means Wikipedia should be able to publish spoilers such as this. As a compromise perhaps allow certain things to be marked as spoilers, and then they could be hidden by default and only revealed if the user clicks something.

The most popular comment presents the problem as a black-and-white dichotomy: whether to have spoilers, or whether not have them at all. Here the majority is in favour of having them.

I agree with both of these positions: have the spoiler, but in exceptional cases, for example when the movie has not been released yet, as in the New York Times example, or in a case like The Mousetrap, include it hidden in a roll-down that the reader can reveal. That is a reasonable compromise.

[Milton Roe]

What we are talking about here is The Mousetrap - "The longest running show in the world". If we have to expose it, then why cannot we expose you? Why does not the argument go two ways?

We did expose Cyclopia. We had a photo of him up, and even put a clown cosmetic whiteout makeup around the mouth. He wasn't very happy about it, but then we don't know as many embarrassing things about his life that we know about Jimbo's.



Please note that Jimbo thinks it would be nice if everybody ELSE had an open BLP on the web. His isn't, and he and his lackeys will never allow it to be. But eventually a crowd editable Wiki on Jimbo's life will be on the web, not under Jimbo's control, and draw some attention. Then (methinks) we'll see some "whaling" from his direction.

[HRIP7]

Basically, Wikipedia is an adolescent encyclopedia. Call it the Peter Pan encyclopedia; it will never grow up.

That, unfortunately, is the problem in a nutshell.

[Larry Sanger]

I already linked a cinema blog, quite clearly populated by people who love to see movies and enjoy them, and let's see what they say:

Leaving aside the demographics of the people visiting this blog, and how representative they are of the general WP readership, the second-most popular comment on the topic is this one:

Yes by all means Wikipedia should be able to publish spoilers such as this. As a compromise perhaps allow certain things to be marked as spoilers, and then they could be hidden by default and only revealed if the user clicks something.

The most popular comment presents the problem as a black-and-white dichotomy: whether to have spoilers, or whether not have them at all. Here the majority is in favour of having them.

I agree with both of these positions: have the spoiler, but in exceptional cases, for example when the movie has not been released yet, as in the New York Times example, or in a case like The Mousetrap, include it hidden in a roll-down that the reader can reveal. That is a reasonable compromise.

Exactly right. I'm actually in favor of having spoilers, generally--maybe even having them for The Mousetrap. But not announcing them in advance, because you declare they aren't necessary for you, ignores the large portion of people who, bless their souls, do not think the way you do.

[Larry Sanger]

What we are talking about here is The Mousetrap - "The longest running show in the world". If we have to expose it, then why cannot we expose you? Why does not the argument go two ways?

Because "The Mousetrap" is a book that you can buy in every bookshop for a few Euros, or read in every library. My parents had the book (I tried to read it as a kid but I found it very dull). It is already public, in every sense of the word.

So? Knowledge is an end in itself, not a means. That means our knowledge of all of your nasty secrets is an end in itself. Doesn't matter if it's public or not.

Or, if you want to say that being public or not is somehow a constraint on what knowledge is revealed, or perhaps how it is revealed, then you are going to have actually defend your position on every other similar constraint that you might want to place--or not place--on the revealing of knowledge. In light of these (rather obvious) observations, simply saying "it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible" proves absolutely nothing. We are discussing whether there should be an exception to this general rule. You already concede that there should be some exceptions. We have given a truly excellent reason for why there should be spoiler warnings on egregious spoilers like the whodunit of The Mousetrap: it ruins the experience for the audience who hasn't seen it, and a lot of people won't know that a spoiler might be coming if you don't tell them. As far as I can tell, you don't have any reply to this at all. Saying, "I personally would assume that an encyclopedia article on the play might have spoilers" is not a response, because it isn't about you (unless you're a grown-up adolescent narcissist), it's about serving an international, highly diverse readership, who (again) might not share your provincial, idiosyncratic assumptions.

This post has been edited by Larry Sanger: Mon 20th September 2010, 5:41pm

[thekohser]

My life is not published on any book, nor reported on any newspaper that I am aware of. So, it is private.

Because you are a worthless speck of insignificant, non-productive, non-notable fluff, correct?

Unlike some of the minor rugby players who played once or twice for Welsh teams in the 1960's, because they have Wikipedia articles, right?

[Cyclopia]

What we are talking about here is The Mousetrap - "The longest running show in the world". If we have to expose it, then why cannot we expose you? Why does not the argument go two ways?

Because "The Mousetrap" is a book that you can buy in every bookshop for a few Euros, or read in every library. My parents had the book (I tried to read it as a kid but I found it very dull). It is already public, in every sense of the word.

So? Knowledge is an end in itself, not a means. That means our knowledge of all of your nasty secrets is an end in itself. Doesn't matter if it's public or not.

Or, if you want to say that being public or not is somehow a constraint on what knowledge is revealed, or perhaps how it is revealed, then you are going to have actually defend your position on every other similar constraint that you might want to place--or not place--on the revealing of knowledge. In light of these (rather obvious) observations, simply saying "it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible" proves absolutely nothing. We are discussing whether there should be an exception to this general rule. You already concede that there should be some exceptions.

I concede the exception is that private information about people has to be kept private. By WP and by anyone else.

I don't concete the exception that already worldwide published information about a play has to be kept restrained by Wikipedia (and, judging at what it is said here, by WP only, apparently: why don't you launch a campaign to remove the ending from the whole Internet?).

The two things do not compare by any standard. In one case we're talking of something that's no one's business, that is released nowhere, and unverifiable. In the other, we're talking of a famous book, a famous play,published worldwide in thousands of copies. You get the difference?

This post has been edited by Cyclopia: Mon 20th September 2010, 5:49pm

[Larry Sanger]

So? Knowledge is an end in itself, not a means. That means our knowledge of all of your nasty secrets is an end in itself. Doesn't matter if it's public or not.

Or, if you want to say that being public or not is somehow a constraint on what knowledge is revealed, or perhaps how it is revealed, then you are going to have actually defend your position on every other similar constraint that you might want to place--or not place--on the revealing of knowledge. In light of these (rather obvious) observations, simply saying "it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible" proves absolutely nothing. We are discussing whether there should be an exception to this general rule. You already concede that there should be some exceptions.

I concede the exception is that private information about people has to be kept private. By WP and by anyone else.

I don't concete the exception that already worldwide published information about a play has to be kept restrained by Wikipedia (and, judging at what it is said here, by WP only, apparently: why don't you launch a campaign to remove the ending from the whole Internet?).

The two things do not compare by any standard. In one case we're talking of something that's no one's business, that is released nowhere, and unverifiable. In the other, we're talking of a famous book, a famous play,published worldwide in thousands of copies. You get the difference?

Wait, wait. You aren't replying. The rest of the Internet isn't Wikipedia, and you haven't established that the killer's identity is readily available all over the Internet anyway--so all that is a silly red herring, a dodge, an attempt not to reply to the basic point. So let me repeat it and give you another chance to dodge reply:

If you want to say that being public or not is somehow a constraint on what knowledge is revealed, or perhaps how it is revealed, then you are going to have actually defend your position on every other similar constraint that you might want to place--or not place--on the revealing of knowledge. In light of these (rather obvious) observations, simply saying "it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible" proves absolutely nothing. We are discussing whether there should be an exception to this general rule. You already concede that there should be some exceptions. We have given a truly excellent reason for why there should be spoiler warnings on egregious spoilers like the whodunit of The Mousetrap: it ruins the experience for the audience who hasn't seen it, and a lot of people won't know that a spoiler might be coming if you don't tell them. As far as I can tell, you don't have any reply to this at all. Saying, "I personally would assume that an encyclopedia article on the play might have spoilers" is not a response, because it isn't about you (unless you're a grown-up adolescent narcissist), it's about serving an international, highly diverse readership, who (again) might not share your provincial, idiosyncratic assumptions.

Now, what is your cowardly dodge response to this? Bear in mind, I am holding you to the logical standards someone who actually has a Ph.D. at Cambridge would be expected to be able to fulfill. In other words, I expect an actual response, or else I will go into full-on mockery and dismissal mode. You have been warned.

[Cyclopia]

So? Knowledge is an end in itself, not a means. That means our knowledge of all of your nasty secrets is an end in itself. Doesn't matter if it's public or not.

Or, if you want to say that being public or not is somehow a constraint on what knowledge is revealed, or perhaps how it is revealed, then you are going to have actually defend your position on every other similar constraint that you might want to place--or not place--on the revealing of knowledge. In light of these (rather obvious) observations, simply saying "it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible" proves absolutely nothing. We are discussing whether there should be an exception to this general rule. You already concede that there should be some exceptions.

I concede the exception is that private information about people has to be kept private. By WP and by anyone else.

I don't concete the exception that already worldwide published information about a play has to be kept restrained by Wikipedia (and, judging at what it is said here, by WP only, apparently: why don't you launch a campaign to remove the ending from the whole Internet?).

The two things do not compare by any standard. In one case we're talking of something that's no one's business, that is released nowhere, and unverifiable. In the other, we're talking of a famous book, a famous play,published worldwide in thousands of copies. You get the difference?

Wait, wait. You aren't replying. The rest of the Internet isn't Wikipedia, and you haven't established that the killer's identity is readily available all over the Internet anyway--so all that is a silly red herring, a dodge, an attempt not to reply to the basic point. So let me repeat it and give you another chance to dodge reply:

If you want to say that being public or not is somehow a constraint on what knowledge is revealed, or perhaps how it is revealed, then you are going to have actually defend your position on every other similar constraint that you might want to place--or not place--on the revealing of knowledge. In light of these (rather obvious) observations, simply saying "it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible" proves absolutely nothing. We are discussing whether there should be an exception to this general rule. You already concede that there should be some exceptions. We have given a truly excellent reason for why there should be spoiler warnings on egregious spoilers like the whodunit of The Mousetrap: it ruins the experience for the audience who hasn't seen it, and a lot of people won't know that a spoiler might be coming if you don't tell them. As far as I can tell, you don't have any reply to this at all. Saying, "I personally would assume that an encyclopedia article on the play might have spoilers" is not a response, because it isn't about you (unless you're a grown-up adolescent narcissist), it's about serving an international, highly diverse readership, who (again) might not share your provincial, idiosyncratic assumptions.

Now, what is your cowardly dodge response to this? Bear in mind, I am holding you to the logical standards someone who actually has a Ph.D. at Cambridge would be expected to be able to fulfill. In other words, I expect an actual response, or else I will go into full-on mockery and dismissal mode. You have been warned.

Just for the record: I took my Ph.D. in Italy, not in Cambridge. I'm here for a postdoctoral fellowship.

Now, since you talk about logic, this is all about assumptions (axioms, so to say) and consequences from that. You start by attributing me a wrong axiom:

"it is information, and we want information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible"

while my axiom is:

it is public, notable information, and we want public and notable information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible

See? Public and notable is part of the axiom.
If this wasn't clear, then I apologize.

There are lots of reasons to not want private and unnotable information go public, and I am sure you know them well. And it's not what encyclopedias are for to show.

There also a lot of reasons to desire public and notable information to be presented in an encyclopedia: and also, that's what encyclopedias are for.

Is it clearer now?

(Oh, and please, go into your

full-on mockery and dismissal mode.

. That's what makes of you a person willing to have a reasonable conversation, I suppose.)


This post has been edited by Cyclopia: Mon 20th September 2010, 6:13pm

[Milton Roe]

while my axiom is:

it is public, notable information, and we want public and notable information to be presented in the most direct, unvarnished way possible

See? Public and notable is part of the axiom.
If this wasn't clear, then I apologize.

There are lots of reasons to not want private and unnotable information go public, and I am sure you know them well. And it's not what encyclopedias are for to show.

There also a lot of reasons to desire public and notable information to be presented in an encyclopedia: and also, that's what encyclopedias are for.

Is it clearer now?

No. "Public" and "notable" are almost infinitely elastic concepts, suitable for gaming either way by those whose interests are at stake.

Your birthdate is on file somewhere in Italy, thus public, as also your ancestry. You will argue that it's not notable, but you're wrong. The fact that I'm interested in it, makes it notable for ME. And it's ME that is important. Me. Me. Me.

I think your bio and photo should up on the web with your birthdate, all the info your alumni association has about you, plus anything else I collect about anything you've ever done outside the four walls of your house, where you had no expectation of privacy. Your credit history is public-- I can legally buy it (wanna bet?).

And all of this should be summarized, indexed, and Google-connectable to you, whenever anybody looks at anything you ever accomplish, ever again in your life.

And we'll keep it up for your family after you're dead, too. Especially the naughty bits.

[Somey]

Ultimately, the reason they're so intransigent in defense of the new policy against spoiler warnings has nothing whatsoever to do with "NPOV"; they're simply dead-set against acknowledging the legitimate interests of their users, interests which might impose some independent constraints on how they do their work.

Legitimate interests of their readers, is what I suspect you meant to say there...

We should note that Mr. Cyclopia is clearly somewhat of an extremist on issues like this (i.e., he thinks of "inclusionism" as a legitimate content-management philosophy rather than a red herring meant to legitimize the "information must be free" quasi-libertarian approach to website building). His point seems to be that you'd expect to find spoiler warnings, rollups, and non-inclusion on a review site or maybe even a news site, but not an encyclopedia, where you (in his opinion) expect to see everything, untrammeled.

It strikes me that this sort of attitude may be a result of having people like me constantly saying things like "it's not a real encyclopedia, it's just an encyclopedia-like website," or worse (it's a "big lake of shit," for example). So their reaction is we must be as much like a real encyclopedia as possible, even to the point of not improving on a real encyclopedia's way of doing things.

In other words, this issue could be just as easily be interpreted the other way: Spoiler rollups would be an improvement over the way something like this would be handled in a paper encyclopedia, but if implemented, Wikipedia would be less like a paper encyclopedia, therefore it must not be implemented. The same holds true for popouts, popups, colored text, and extra tags for content-filtering in general. And yet, time and time again, we see how "controversial" sections of articles are "off-loaded" to subpages. This is almost exactly the same thing, and yet there's no problem with doing that, in most cases.

Just as a personal disclaimer, one of the reasons I'm interested in this issue is because of something that happened on Uncyclopedia in 2006. There was (and still is) and article called "Euroipods" that one of the administrators thought was such a ridiculously obvious and stupid spam attempt that it was funny purely on that basis, and he decided it should be featured on the main page - which caused a huge fuss, because at least half of the users didn't have that reaction and thought it should be deleted, not featured. As a side-effect, the fuss caused the article to be lengthened to an absurd extent, causing it to lose even its original dubious humor value (i.e., one of the reasons it was funny was because it was so short). It also began to be used by certain admins as a means of getting revenge on users they disliked, by including their user names in the article against their wishes.

I saw fairly quickly that since the admins weren't going to relent without a way to save face, a rollup was the common-sense compromise solution to practically the whole situation. So, I lobbied to have the rollup extension installed, and once it was working, I made almost all but the original article a rollup - and it turned out that I was right. The fuss died down, pretty much everyone backed off, and the rollup is still there, to this day, four years later.

Anyhoo, I guess all I'm saying is that people invent things like rollups for a reason - and Wikipedia should embrace things like rollups, not reject them for being "non-encyclopedic." And FWIW, I can essentially guarantee that the reasons people say WP isn't a real encyclopedia have nothing to do with the presence (or lack) of rollups.

Quote of the year!

Indeed, he gets the top-line blurb link for that one. Congrats, Doc!

...Wikipedians, who (like this alleged Cambridge man) fancy themselves committed to the unvarnished truth, are above such piddling conventions. They prove their superiority by flouting the convention, just like any adolescent nonconformist.

Another good way of putting it. It's an example of mass narcissism in action, really - those rules and conventions don't apply to us, we're an encyclopedia is basically the same "not our fault" mode of thinking as, "it's the parent's responsibilty to filter inappropriate content" or "if the person doesn't want his personal details to be anonymously edited by anyone whatsoever, he/she shouldn't have become 'notable' in the first place."