Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Reveals Secret of 'The Mousetrap'
Hugh Pickens writes "CIOL reports that Wikipedia has revealed the secret of Agatha Christie's famous murder mystery 'The Mousetrap' by identifying the killer in the world's longest running play, now at over 24,000 performances ever since its maiden performance in 1952, despite protests from the author's family and petitions from fans who think the revelation is a spoiler. Angry at the revelation, Matthew Prichard, Christie's grandson, who describes the decision of Wikipedia as 'unfortunate,' says he will raise the matter with the play's producer, Sir Stephen Waley-Cohen. 'My grandmother always got upset if the plots of her books or plays were revealed in reviews — and I don't think this is any different. It's a pity if a publication, if I can call it that, potentially spoils enjoyment for people who go to see the play.' Unrepentant, Wikipedia justifies the decision to reveal the ending of the play. 'Our purpose is to collect and report notable knowledge. It's exceedingly easy to avoid knowing the identity of the murderer: just don't read it.'"
Why don't they just edit it with "spoiler alert"
People should know by now that if you don't want to have the ending spoiled for you, don't read the plot section. It's not a review. It's an encyclopedic article.
Gesh so now we can't even talk about stuff cause we "might spoil" it for another. Get over it. Grandma and you have made your money so hush.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Addendum: He appears to have an account on Slashdot if he wishes to defend this edit.
Oh grow up.When people fret because the ending of a play was "made public" they need to stop fiddling with the lint in their belly button.And besides since when did Wikipedia become "authoritative"... may be they *got it wrong*.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Regardless of the person who removed the spoiler template, this seems to be a fairly straightforward edit. His edit comment referred to the guideline on spoilers: "Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers."
This is just a guideline, so it's not like it's totally set in stone, and I have no idea if the guideline is representative of the general opinion; however it seems fairly reasonable to me: you really would expect an encyclopedia article to contain spoilers in the plot summary, particularly since pretty much anything can be considered a spoiler (personally, I'm very picky about it). That said, I think the article summary, that is the introductory paragraph before the table of contents, should be free of significant spoilers.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Because the Independent had space to fill, and it's August. Hence claiming that anonymous IPs on a talk page are "approved Wikipedia committee members," something that doesn't exist, and calling up Matthew Prichard to try to pump up the story. Another 500 words down.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
So, then. It's just like academia and the formation of a traditional encyclopedia, is it?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
"JoshuaZ" is clearly a "David Gerard" sockpuppet.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.