Wikipedia Reveals Secret of 'The Mousetrap' 244
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.'"
Spoiler Alert (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't they just edit it with "spoiler alert"
Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Quit yer damn whinning (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quit yer damn whinning (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
A lot of people really hate free choice because then somebody else might use something in a way they don't approve of. The fact that it doesn't deprive anyone else of making the same choice isn't good enough for them. This is a microcosm. The macrocosm is all of the bad laws we have attempting to regulate what consenting adults may or may not do. It's busybody Puritanism at its finest.
And He's On Slashdot Too (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Spoiler Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia is a MMO, with deletions being the #1 game objective.
Re:Unfortunate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple (Score:2, Insightful)
And since the spoilers can easily be hidden, only to be revealed by a user interaction (such as a click) there is no reason to not do such. Wikipedia has advantages over a printed publication, and should take advantage of that. Just as the crowd sourcing is taken advantage of.
With proper tagging of the spoiler, it could be up to a printer how it would be peinted, and they could require extra effort for web readers as they wanted. I think that's kind of the point of separating display from content.
Shame on them.
Re:Spoiler Alert (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they really have to? If you look up "The Mousetrap" at Wikipedia, do you really not expect to see a synopsis of the story?
Next up: Lawsuits against Cliff's Notes for revealing how books turn out..
Anyway, any mystery fan should be able to see the big "secret ending" of The Mousetrap coming from about a mile away (it was Colonel Mustard, in the family room, with the morningstar)
Re:Spoiler Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, I do think that the spoiler issue in Wikipedia betrays the group think that goes on there sometimes placing ideology over pragmatism. It wouldn't hurt them to include spoiler warnings and it certainly lessens for me the utility of it. I simply do not read articles in Wikipedia on any works of fiction that I may want to read in the future for this reason. You can't even read the introduction.
Re:Because David Gerard Removed It (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Spoiler Alert (Score:1, Insightful)
Mod that spoiling asshole down. To oblivion.
(Unless he's lying)
Re:Wikipedia publishes spoilers all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Because David Gerard Removed It (Score:3, Insightful)
So, then. It's just like academia and the formation of a traditional encyclopedia, is it?
Re:Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Without taking a stand on whether it is right or wrong to reveal the ending, I want to make the point that Agatha Christie's wishes are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Authors do not have the prerogative to control the conversations about their works. Whether it is rude or not to reveal the ending is unrelated to the author's feelings on the matter.
Re:Because David Gerard Removed It (Score:3, Insightful)