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.'"
Now the mystery is solved. It was Agatha Christie that accused Julian Assange of rape!
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.
Unrepetant (sic), 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.'
Wikipedia then coughed and got into its Bentley and instructed the driver to take it to the nearest pub where it drank profusely. Then it went home and beat its wife.
Sound absurd? Because Wikipedia is such a diverse collection of individuals it's possible that all of the above is true.
If you're interested in who made that original statement quoted in the article and summary, it appears to have been a reader named CyclOpia according to The Signpost. And the full quote is cited as:
"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. Asking Wikipedia not to reveal the identity of the murderer is like asking a library to remove copies of The Mousetrap book from shelves because someone could just go and read the end."
Whether or not you agree with that analogy, it's difficult to find who wrote it and when officially. And even then you're dealing with a pseudonym. Does anyone know what current administrators think? If not, the best you can do is read the policy on spoilers. If you're quoting users, the Signpost offers a totally different view from "Wikipedia":
I would argue that, however trivial it may appear, the revelation of the ending breaches an oral contract between the actors and the audience. Such is the fame of the secrecy that an audience member cannot reasonably attend without knowing their role to play in guarding it, and thus an oral contract, implied in fact, has taken place. Given the importance of Wikipedia on the internet, I believe that they have a duty to protect this contract, as its breach is completely disrespectful of an old and well-kept tradition.
My work here is dung.
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.
Not only is Wikipedia aware of the concept, but they have an article devoted to why they're no longer using them
Why don't they just edit it with "spoiler alert"
Originally it had this classification but it was edited out by David Gerard. And I believe has not been added back since. If you don't know who David Gerard is, he has been very active in Wikipedia since early 2004 and blogs frequently about it.
My work here is dung.
... goes as follows:
You turn the crank that turns the gears, it turns the lever that swings the boot, it kicks the bucket and drops the ball, it rolls down the stairs and down the slide, it hits the pole and pushes the hand and knocks the marble down the chute, into the bathtub and down the hole, onto the seesaw launching the man, THE TRAP IS SET HERE COMES THE NET!
Why is it news that one particular play has a key fact about the plot published?
Maybe it was cruel of WP editors to remove the spoiler warning/spoiler box, and expand that into the article. But that's just the sort of stuff that happens on WP, you can't rely on having a warning.
If you are thinking of watching a play or reading a book, you should watch the play or read the book before you read a plot summary about it.
People research works of literature without reading them or watching the play, imagine that. 100 years from now, when the play is no longer running, the public and researchers will still want to know all about the plot of the story, even if they never actually can go to a play or read the book.
I think they used to have spoiler tags. See WP:SPOILER. It appears that the group consensus among Wikipedia editors was that if they were to use spoiler tags then they wouldn't be such huge fuckheads so of course they decided against using spoiler tags.
(The Fifth Element is Love, Snape kills Dumbledore, and Bruce Willis was dead the whole time.)
Snape kills Dumbledore.
It's sad that Wiki thinks it makes any difference to tell people the plot but it's not really that big a deal. In a month's time everyone will have forgotten anyway, and it only really affects you if you've been DYING to see that particular play.
I love The Mousetrap. I try to take all my friends to it at least once. It's in the tiniest little theatre, hidden among dozens of huge monstrosities. The first time I tried to get there on my own, I spent an hour walking around asking in shops where the place was, despite having been there before - I eventually found out it was OPPOSITE the shop where I'd asked a store-owner and he'd said he'd never heard of it and didn't know where the theatre was. Considering it's the only play in that theatre, and the only theatre it's been in for the last few decades, and it does several showings every day, that was pretty impressive. It's very "old-fashioned" because it is the world's longest running play, mostly in that same theatre for the majority of that time: St. Martin's Theatre. It's a simple, fun thing to watch. It's a good, old-fashioned play. Not a spectacular, not a circus, not some pantomime or musical made famous because some actor from TV is in it, just a good, old-fashioned play in a theatre.
The play actually includes a part at the end where the actors come together on stage, and ask you to "keep the secret of The Mousetrap in your hearts" now that you know it. In all the time I've spoken to people about it, nobody has ever told me the ending even when they knew I'd seen it myself.
This *will* ruin things for some people - they'll go on Wiki to look up the play before they go to see it and, bam, the whole plot of the play is ruined. For them. It's inevitable that such people will want to spoil it for others but you can't avoid that. More fool them.
And, although I always thought that the "murderer" was obvious from the outset, apparently that's not a majority view. I now use the play as a sort of test. I take friends to it, let them get to the interval and ask them if they know "whodunnit". Nobody that I've taken has yet managed to do that correctly - including scientists, a barrister, and research students. As far as I can tell, from all the friends I know that have seen the play, I'm the only one to have worked it out before the interval - and I didn't just guess.
The Mousetrap is great. Cheap, basic, entertainment if you're ever in London. Just be sure to ask for directions, don't be looking for HUGE signposts showing the way, and don't expect some modern special-effects extravaganza.
Which usually means that the person with the largest cajoles is the one who prevails, or the one most well connected with the ArbCom so you don't have fear from wheel warring when mere edit wars aren't sufficient.
While Wikipedia may not be a democracy, there still is the concept of consensus building. What is really bizarre about this particular AfD discussion (technicaly template deletion discussion.... but that is irrelevant) is that the admin/person responsible noted the extreme consensus to keep and even formally declared that the prevailing consensus was overwhelmingly to keep the template, yet it was still deleted anyway. This isn't even a strength of the argument issue, but simply somebody wielding authority arbitrarily and ignoring consensus and Wikipedia policies and traditions entirely. It also appears to be a forum shopping experience where the discussion was consistently raised over and over again until it was finally deleted.
There is definitely somebody with an axe to grind with these discussion.
I was going to, like, contribute some stuff to Wikipedia...but now I know what happens, I guess I'll do something else that evening.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."