# Why is plot summary so popular on wikipedia and amazon reviews?

**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-plot-summary-so-popular-on-wikipedia-and-amazon-reviews/523006
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [December 30, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-plot-summary-so-popular-on-wikipedia-and-amazon-reviews/523006 "2009-12-30T03:21:16Z")
**Posts on this page:** 6
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![MwNNrules](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f8ce5/32.png) [@MwNNrules](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MwNNrules)
#### Post date: [December 31, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-plot-summary-so-popular-on-wikipedia-and-amazon-reviews/523006/21 "2009-12-31T22:21:22Z")

</div>

As a former editor of Wikipedia (before I decided it just wasn’t worth my time, with the constant arguing on stupid things) I can say right now that when working on an article for a fictional work, the best part is working on the plot summary. You get the most freedom in expressing what happened there. I was always sure, looking at a plot summary on an article, that I could have written it better. And on fictional work articles, the plot summary routinely goes through the most change.

Can’t say much for why people would want to go through the entire plot in a review. There’s a fine line between making an exposition and ruining a fictional work’s fine points there.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![srzss05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@srzss05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/srzss05)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-plot-summary-so-popular-on-wikipedia-and-amazon-reviews/523006/22 "2010-01-01T19:52:33Z")

</div>

> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#):
>
> How are the bots getting more aggressive on Wikiipedia? I’m not being sarcastic; I would like to know. It’s not something I’ve noticed, but I haven’t had time to contribute much recently.

There aren’t really any “bots” that are reverting wikipedia articles, unless you count the “meatbots” with too much time on their hands. I too have not seen any aggressive changes made, but I don’t try to pay much attention to that anymore.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)
#### Post date: [January 5, 2010, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-plot-summary-so-popular-on-wikipedia-and-amazon-reviews/523006/23 "2010-01-05T05:18:37Z")

</div>

It’s useful and expected on informational sites like wikipedia. Not sure why it’s so prevalent in reviews. I’ve even seen this phenomenon in professional reviews, which boggles the mind. Some kind of plot description is useful, especially when it’s missing from other sections, but no more than a book jacket sort of blurb…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)
#### Post date: [January 5, 2010, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-plot-summary-so-popular-on-wikipedia-and-amazon-reviews/523006/24 "2010-01-05T05:25:19Z")

</div>

As an aside… a few months ago I noticed this phenomenon too, mostly in film reviews and got to wondering, aside from some description of the plot and a rating, what should good reviews contain? Anyone have a recommendation for a guide to writing good reviews?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malleus_incus_stapes/32/3293_2.png) [@Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malleus_Incus_Stapes)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-plot-summary-so-popular-on-wikipedia-and-amazon-reviews/523006/25 "2010-01-06T04:06:27Z")

</div>

You should start a thread in CS (or IMO? probably CS).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2010, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-plot-summary-so-popular-on-wikipedia-and-amazon-reviews/523006/26 "2010-01-06T04:26:08Z")

</div>

Plot summaries are in Wiki articles because they are information, and Wiki is there to provide information. I’m grateful they exist. I often become curious about a book or movie that I don’t necessarily want to read or see, and it’s nice to be able to find that information easily.  
If you don’t want to read it, you don’t have to.

Wiki is not the place for “analysis,” at least not for the personal opinions of whoever’s writing the article, which no one cares about. There are free blogging sites available for that.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-plot-summary-so-popular-on-wikipedia-and-amazon-reviews/523006.md?page=1)
