Talk:Twenty Vicodin

Leaked episode plot summary details/possible administrator tyranny, correct me if I'm wrong? (and I may be)

"Revision as of 23:56, 26 September 2011"

"DragonflySixtyseven (We will NOT be using information that comes from the episode that leaked online. We will wait until the episode actually airs on October 3.)"

My first impression when reading this was (naturally, I think), why? And "we will", okay, just who the hell are you to be speaking for us and making this determination?

So then I clicked on his name and saw that, oh, apparently an administrator, that's who. Further on, more communication from Dragonfly within his actual edit itself:

"Let me be absolutely clear. There will be NO plot synopses involving information that cannot be found in the official previews, until such time as the episode actually airs. I *will* issue blocks if need be. Is that understood?"

Authoritarian threats have always been a good way for some people to ensure compliance I guess; so I was about to restore the information anyway (with a modification), regardless of any meaningless block, since the information would be relevant to an encyclopedic article on this topic (that is, this episode), at least it will be until the episode airs, which is what encyclopedias, like Wikipedia, are for (and not for protecting the interests of private IP holders such as Fox or etc.), but I realized since I am not aware of any rules regarding this area on Wikipedia (unofficial pre-release leaked information), that I could be wrong about this and I should probably try the discussion page first.

So, common sense to me would seem to indicate (and this would have been the modification I would have used, mentioned above) that the article should include the plot information from the leaked screener (after the more limited official plot information) with the proviso before it that simply states "the following plot information was gleaned from a pre-release screener, and consequently may not be considered accurate/fully completed, etc., etc."

Clearly any issues of dis-encouraging "piracy" are not at stake here, because (I believe), this sort of thing has happened many times over many things on Wikipedia but more importantly the encyclopedia itself shouldn't be concerned with taking any position on that sort of issue (the only sort of issue where I've ever seen this make sense, deleting accurate leaked information, is to save the life of some reporter being held hostage by Al-Qaeda).

I understand the importance of only referencing sourced things or in this case officially sourced things in regards to the accuracy of something, however, I see no reason not to include the information contained in the leaked screener with the provisos mentioned. Sourced or not, it is clearly from the season 8 premier episode, Twenty Vicodin, even if Fox outright went and denied it was (if watching that video in court, would anyone have trouble identifying the actor portraying Dr. Gregory House in this video as being Hugh Laurie, beyond a shadow of a doubt?).

And the information should be included, because this is Wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia. People should expect to be able to turn to encyclopedias (and especially Wikipedia) with the assumption that they are being provided with comprehensive coverage of all the details relevant to the subject at hand, even seemingly trivial (to some) ones like a TV show episode page entry.

If Wikipedia considers the page important enough to be covered, then this article's information should be entitled to the same protections that guarantee the right to full coverage on Scientology, Dick Cheney, evolution and chewing tobacco, or any other page on Wikipedia.

So I ask, given putting in such a proviso as mentioned, am I wrong anywhere here? Why would we not do that as opposed to trying to bury information (the only purpose of which being, that I can see, being to aid the House M.D. IP holders in suppressing leaked information about their season premiere to make sure people still tune into watch it on Monday)?

And I realize that in a day the information that could be contained on this page from the screener episode will be irrelevant anyway, but this made it seem to me all the more relevant to bring up this issue now, as a point of principle, regarding how we run Wikipedia.

--JMSNorthern (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dragonfly asked me to look at this situation, but he and I disagree as often as we agree and he knows that, so it was basically a request for a third opinion. The bottom line here, to my mind, is that a leaked screener is not a reliable source. If it's not acknowledged by the studio to be the official version, then we have no real way to know how much it resembles what the final version will be. Torrents are not reliable sources. Leaked content is not a reliable source, unless and until it's acknowledged as valid by the producing studio/company/whatever. Without that sort of acknowledgement, we have "plot" content which could have been manipulated, fabricated, or decided against and re-scripted by the studio, and content like that is content on which we can't base an encyclopedia article. As an outside observer here, I'd say wait 24 hours until there's reliable confirmation for the plot, and don't add "leaked" information. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a compromise. Leaked content is a source, that is usually reliable (unless someone actualyl filmed an alternative version with the original actors, and I assume nobody's claiming that). yet, until the official episode is to air, the article could be tagged with an tag. It's sure better than having no info, destroying info or blocking users.. --Namaste@^? 11:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider what happened with the Simpsons (or so the episodes would have us believe). It alleged that they produced the episode where Maggie shot Mr Burns with different possible shooters, and had 2 endings. What if the ending with Smithers as the killer was leaked. Should that then be regarded as a source and used on Wikipedia (at least before the episode aired)?Black.jeff (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twenty Vicodin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111215180416/http://www.bbm.ca/_documents/top_30_tv_programs_english/2011/nat11142011.pdf to http://bbm.ca/_documents/top_30_tv_programs_english/2011/nat11142011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)