Talk:Exposure (magic)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Exposure (magic) is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 1/2/2007. The result of the discussion was cleanup. |
Contents |
[edit] Another Problem
Most wikipedia.org entries seem to exist in a vacuum, by which I mean not only that there are no legitimate references, but that the entry is not even aware of its own context. This "exposure" writeup serves as such an excellent specimen of hopelessness that we can use it in several contexts. For example, the most notorious and disgusting example of magical exposures is wikipedia itself. If you will search for entries on various magical effects, gimmicks and props you will generally find short entries, obviously written by mentally-challenged teenagers, which are rarely longer than three sentences, and have no purpose other than to expose the "secret," or what the addled teenager supposes is the secret. Look around and you will find a dozen examples. By the way, I am not trying to suppress my identity, the wikipedia server, if there is such a thing, is so hopelessly overloaded that I generally find it impossible to log in. [Rory Coker]
Is there a template for "This article has too many templates?" --Ben Applegate 06:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Complete rewrite needed
This entry reads as if written by a semiliterate teenager whose only knowledge of the topic comes from surfing the web. It needs to be brought up to some reasonable standard of english usage and professional familarity with the subject. Cokerwr 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The real secrets of magic will always be safe and well.Kazuba (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 'Apparent' exposures
This entry is NOT written in the english language. It needs to be revised by someone who is literate and also knowledgeable magically.
I've added verbiage about 'apparent' exposures, tricks where the magician appears to be repeating a previous trick but really isn't. I can't remember my Amateur Magician's Handbook well enough anymore -- isn't there a technical term for this? Eaglizard 14:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- The usual term for an effect with a fake explanation is "sucker effect"--TStone 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, Penn and Teller should not be used in pro-exposure context, as they do fake-exposures, or expose material they have invented for that single purpose. There are no similatities, and they would be both hurt and insulted by being in the same sentence as the Masked Magician
[edit] Proposal re. magic methods
See the proposal: Policy for magic methods --TStone 17:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Page moved to Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods. --cesarb 14:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opinion
It says it is frowned upon by most people, but I am an exception. I don't even want to go to a magic show unless it is definite that I will learn the tricks! FLaRN (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Balanced view of links
Wikipedia should present balanced views. In the past this page has been subject to vanadalism of links to sites advocating exposure. There are benefits of exposure and non exposure as stated in the article and therefore the balance of the links should reflect this. There's no reason for example why a "webring of sites against exposure" should take precedence over a site explaining the benefits of exposure.
[edit] Intellectual Property
Somebody should check whether a scientific principle can be patented. Actually--you probably don't need to bother. I'm pretty sure it can't be. However the trick might still be patentable by combining the principle with something else. Of course, that would prevent other people from reproducing it but not from revealing how it is done. The very process of filing for a patent would require a disclosure to the public. Either way, I think the chances of winning an IP suit to protect a magic trick is slim to none. You might have a chance on trade secret--but only against a certain group of people, and certainly not against somebody who had figured the trick out on their own. -- Anonymous
In the United States, bald scientific principles (e.g., magnetism) cannot be patented. Particular implementations of a scientific principle (e.g., hard disk that use magnetism to encode information) can be patented. See the Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure, section 2106(IV)(A), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2106.htm#sect2106. David Copperfield has some of his devices patented.
Other intellectual property protection might be available under copyright or trade secret law. As noted above, trade secret protection would not protect against someone who independently figured out a trick (as opposed to learning it in confidence from the creator, and later breaking that confidence by disclosing the method of the trick). Copyright protection would most likely be difficult to assert, since it protects from people copying the trick, not explaining it. Moreover, copyrights do not protect against independent creation.
Thus, I agree with the original anonymous commentor that this section should be removed. 38.112.155.5 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tags
There is no discussion of the tags so I am removing them. FGT2 19:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
