On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 29 August 2010 12:09, Michael Peel
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
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?