On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 August 2010 12:09, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
I'm really puzzled how they managed to get the description of the Wikimedia community so wrong, considering that talked to them on the phone about this on Friday afternoon and thought that I'd explained this to them. A bit of basic fact-checking should have shown up the non-existance of a "Wikipedia committee" (and, of course, the existence of the "online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" bit...).
Having a space to fill in the silly season, and fundamentally really not giving a hoot what it's filled with or whether it even makes sense. This is why Wikipedia media coverage peaks in August.[citation needed]
Does no-one want to discuss whether the ending of the Mousetrap play should be included in the article or not? I haven't seen it, btw, so if people could avoid revealing the ending that would be good! :-)
This is not an invitation to revive the whole spoiler debate, but this situation is slightly different in that those involved in putting the play on and the descendants of the author are speaking out against this. I suppose it is an argument for spoilers if those involved request it. There is something similar going through the courts at the moment regarding the identity of the Stig, the test driver on the BBC program Top Gear.
Could there be a BLP-like exception for spoilers, adding one if those who wrote or produce the thing being spoiled request it? Obviously, the ending or spoiler would still be discussed within the article, but you could add a section saying "XYZ have requested that the ending not be spoiled, so this notice serves as a spoiler notice that the article reveals and discusses the ending" (modified as needed).
Seem courteous, but can Wikipedia be courteous?
Carcharoth