Inkipedia talk:Policy/Rumors and leaks

Policy Discussion
I personally don't like the policy because:
 * 1) Other sources will cover leaks such as Reddit, IGN, YouTube, and other wiki sites.
 * 2) We're undoing good content which discourages growth. It is really demoralising as a new editor to have a contribution you've worked on for more than 20 minutes undone because of an arguably unfair policy.
 * 3) I'm not sure what the difference between unreleased teasers and leaks are. e.g. we know of Camp Triggerfish not because of Nintendo, but because it was in the "Coming Soon" section of the Prima guide. Does that count as a leak?

Some policies in descending order of censorship:
 * 1) Allow all coverage.
 * 2) Allow all coverage, so long as it can be verified on external sites. (My personal choice).
 * 3) Allow links to external sources to cite any information we supply and reword.
 * 4) Allow links to external sources to cite any information we supply (but not reveal any further information).
 * 5) Allow only official coverage.

Some branches off:
 * 1) Ask if users want to see leaked content in a spoiler-ish way, possibly like the original plan for a spoiler page. This could have an explicit disclaimer on it.
 * 2) Put content on page, but have it in 'invisible' (highlight or click to see) text similar to TV Tropes.

13:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK let me explain from what guy said; basically we arent covering anything thats found from Datamining, but we're supposed to cover anything else as long as its true or significant. Were not supposed to put info from datamining because technically its illegal to datamine. NepetaLast (talk)


 * We could probably use a "In Short..." section, detailing the DOs and DON'Ts in the same way you just said, Nepeta. – EspyoT 15:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Some follow-up questions for edits already made that we should come to a consensus about: 18:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we allow leaked content to be hosted here? e.g. File:OctolingPlayable.png
 * Should we caption said leaked content accordingly (i.e. this is hacked) such as the above file's usage on ''Octoling.
 * A follow-up to point 2. in the OP, should good content edits like this be reverted? Deleted? (Obviously notify the editor at the very least, though this was not done in this example).

If I may add my two cents, how come other sites are "allowed" to get away with discussing hacked/leaked info, the Wiki, the site dedicated to reporting this kind of stuff, is not? Reddit, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, all formats which Nintendo has access to, do not seem to receive any kind of warning or penalty for discussing said hacked/leaked info. Why would, out of the blue, a website dedicated to simply saying "It's here" get penalized for it? It truly makes no sense. On top of that, "Data Mining" is a purely economical term. Plus, numerous other gaming companies also utilize "datamining" for their own personal games, throwing in Red herrings to distract user/hackers from larger things. Minecraft's company, Mojang, utilizes these kind of tactics by locking in red herring files to distract the community from smaller things. Jpmrocks (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/jason.frand/teacher/technologies/palace/datamining.htm
 * Nintendo's policy on DM describes hacking the WiiU console for an economical gain, checking to see an influx of certain types of games being bought on certain days with specific pattern. Any data found within the files that is not being used for an economical gain is surely illegal, but since we are simply stating "this data was found", there is no legal penalty. And even if there is a penalty, so many other site themselves would suffer the same kind of fate.
 * Overall, I believe the policy should be rewritten or something to state knowing the Data Mining is a term used for analyzing the economical portion of an online environment. Since we have no economical gain from listing these hacked/leaked files, there is no violation of policy on any behalf. I also feel that "being afraid that Big N will do something to us" kind of mentality is a leaker form of running anything, and can quickly deter users. "Oh, this site doesn't have anything on this such and such leak, they must not keep in the loop of Splatoon." Really, we should keep the information present as it is the role of a Wiki to hold information on it's topic, until an external entity tells us so, in this case Nintendo, or Nintendo employees. So a "beg for forgiveness, not for permission" mentality, I believe should be utilized for this kind of policy/situation.

I agree with Kjhf. To be honest, the content is all in the game. It's included in the files and is, obviously, official. Not having the content is a total missed opportunity and also an opportunity for other sites/the old wiki to benefit. I understand the other side of the argument, but I feel it would greatly benefit us if we allowed datamined content. -  Shrimp Pin  23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree we should let datamined information come to light mostly because other sites and wikis would leave us in the dust if not. Plus, it's still a sort of leak, just not very conventional. Think about it this way: a leak is when information that should be kept within the minds of the developers "leaks out" and goes outside. In this case, only the devs were meant to know about the stage's existence. Then, with a series of exploits and tools, some players managed to find the data within the game and revealed the associated information to the world. As for worrying about us doing anything "illegal", we're not really the ones doing the datamining, nor are we explaining how to do it. – EspyoT 08:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Bump. In my opinion, saying "This data was found, indicating x" isn't illegal in any way. Even if the dataminers are violating an agreement, it would be like Wikipedia never discussing robberies simply because they're illegal. I prefer option 2 as opposed to option 1, though, just because it's easier than checking every claim with a Google search. Nyargle blargle (Talk  ·   Contribs) 16:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So...no opposition to covering datamined info as far as I can tell (aside from SuperHamster, obviously). Is it okay to change? Nyargle blargle  (Talk  ·   Contribs) 19:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hamster said he would read and respond when he's next available. Until then...  21:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily against covering leaked/datamined information; when I wrote the policy, I was delivering what the staff decided as consensus :) Given the discussion and after thinking about it, I think it's fair and safe to cover leaked/datamined information, as long as it is sourced to reliable external sites. ~Super Hamster  Talk 04:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be in favor, then. How would this wording be? ''A leak is classified content that has been revealed without permission from the owner. For video games, a leak usually contains unannounced features and content. Datamining is against most video game publishers' licensing agreement (including Nintendo's). Inkipedia does not condone leaking content and breaches of agreements. However, Inkipedia does cover leaked information sourced reported on by other, reliable sites.'' Nyargle blargle  Let's go Mets! (Talk  ·  Contribs) 19:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Used and extended, thanks for that! I've redone much of the policy. Write here if there's any more amendments that should be included. I'm so glad this change is finally here. 18:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming content leaks

 * "For example, if content is leaked with a post on social media about an upcoming feature, the post should be linked as a citation."

This part of the page doesn't reflect the current policy followed by staff, and should be edited accordingly; we currently only allow documentation of datamined content accompanied by reliable sources if the associated content (eg. new Events, Seasons) have become available/unlocked in-game. Yoshifan52 (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to change leak policy
Given recent events, I'd like to propose a major change to our current Rumors and Leaks policy: Inkipedia should no longer allow documentation of upcoming datamined content on-wiki until after the content's immediate relevance has either passed, or the content is officially revealed. Documentation of previously leaked content as well as datamined content irrelevant to ongoing updates would be allowed regarding all three games; the key term here is upcoming content leaks, specifically regarding Splatoon 3.

Under our current policy, major leaks of any kind are allowed to be added on-wiki so long as they're accredited to a source that's considered reliable enough by the editing community's standards; there are several problems with this:
 * 1) In the case of event-related leaks, such as Splatfest stage leaks, it creates unnecessary busywork; editors must verify then document the information with sources ahead of the event when leaks occur, then as soon as the stage is officially revealed (either via social media or the stage becoming available in-game), the datamining-related source is no longer needed, and must be edited out. This entire process could be circumvented by waiting for the official reveal; there is not enough value in adding leaks to general mainspace pages in this fashion.
 * 2) A major copyright problem arises in cases of Inkipedia documenting major upcoming, unrevealed information; another wiki in the NIWA network (Pikipedia) has recently faced DMCAs regarding their articles documenting upcoming content that had leaked.
 * 3) While spoilers are allowed on-wiki, documenting leaks generates massive spoilers for content that players are entirely unable to access by any method other than hacking, which is not condoned by Inkipedia. Documentation of leaks effectively works against aiding the encyclopedia's users by describing to them in detail ahead of time things they may be looking forward to accessing themselves in an official capacity.

Documentation of no longer immediately relevant leaks should be done on the rumors and leaks page exclusively going forward. "Immediate relevance" refers to the subjective time period of when the upcoming content described in the leak is expected to be added in-game. For example, leaks regarding Drizzle Season 2023 are immediately relevant during Sizzle Season 2023, the months proceeding its release; after Drizzle Season 2023's exact contents are officially revealed and/or are made available (whichever comes first), then both documentation of the season's contents and the fact it had leaked may begin on-wiki.

To put these changes in effect, I'm proposing for the current Leaks section in the linked policy page to be changed to the following:

A leak is classified content that has been revealed without permission from the owner. For video games, a leak usually contains unannounced features and content. Leaking unreleased content or reverse engineering it from the game's files is against most video game publishers' licensing agreement (including Nintendo's). Inkipedia does not condone leaking content and breaches of agreements. While the content of upcoming Splatoon updates may leak online from time to time, Inkipedia is not the place to turn to for leak updates. Do not document leaked upcoming content on Inkipedia. The existence of leaks, including their contents, may be documented exclusively on the rumors and leaks page after they are rendered no longer immediately relevant; this means that if the contents of a leak are expected to be revealed or added in-game at a later date, then they should not be added to Inkipedia. After that period ends, the fact the information had ever leaked can be documented, but remember that no documentation of leaked information should be original content! All leak-related information should include reliable citations. For example, if content had previously leaked through a post on social media about an upcoming feature, that post should be linked as a citation, but only after the leak is no longer relevant to upcoming updates.

Vote by signing in the appropriate section below. The vote will end 2 weeks from now if there are no opposing votes. Otherwise, the vote will end 4 weeks from now. This voting process has been put into motion with administration's permission. Yoshifan52 (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I support because I don't think datamined content should be on the wiki because it isn't 100% confirmed and could spoil stuff Snoozefry (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) What Snooze said, and that it could put the wiki's existence in jeopardy.--Arceusgjengen (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) This makes sense. I think there's not much point documenting content that's inaccessible, especially since it just has to be changed again later. I could see the use in allowing leaked upcoming content on a less active wiki, but we have enough editors keeping up with the game that I don't think it will be an issue. Sourguppyworm (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  08:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  09:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) ShoeAgletts (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) UltraMelon (talk) 1:20pm, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Trig Jegman - 14:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 9)   14:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 10)   14:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 11)  16:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 12) Mostly agree with what others have said. Deepsea (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 13) S3 Tableturf Battle card Toni Kensa.png ℂ𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕖𝕥.𝕠𝕔𝕥𝕠 S3 Tableturf Battle card Annaki.png  ( ℙ𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕥𝕝𝕖 ) 16:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 14) Six-claws (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 15) Islar74 (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 16) Ooga chaga (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 17) Brycerw11 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 18) Definitely sounds like it's for the good of the wiki! GloverMist (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 19)  21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 17:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Eli (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  01:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) I personally think that leaks should not be added onto the wiki, i'm leaning towards that. But at the same time, I think leaks could be of use in some scenarios... but I don't think leaks should be on this wiki.  01:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Confirming that the creation of this vote was approved by me and Trig Jegman. Heddy (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hosting any game images/assets, music, etc. already technically "put[s] the wiki's existence in jeopardy" (although in all likelihood very defendable under US Fair Use doctrines) so this argument is not a good one, or it at least certainly isn't anything new. –Eli (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think hosting datamined info should still be allowed, e.g. alternate Splatfest dialogue, Big Run & Splatfest event participation numbers and player count, etc. –Eli (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no unique dialogue for the Big Run participation numbers, but they already knew people would get very big high scores. I modded the game and tried low scores, like in the results promo image for the first Big Run, but Deep Cut says the same dialogue. The dialogue for the scores is different depending on the Big Run event, but regarding the dialogue, it all says the scores are very big. For example, selecting the 01x_1 parameter for the News_BigRunResult category in the game's files shows the score dialogue from the second Big Run from March. KPOfficial26 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the first paragraph of my post, leaks/datamines of any kind that can be reasonably assumed to not be upcoming content would continue to be fine to document. Those leaks are much less likely to draw the attention of copyright holders and do not unfairly spoil users as they're typically inaccessible. Datamined Splatoon 2 unused dialogue and such is unaffected, as that game is no longer receiving content updates; those leaks are not immediately relevant. If new unused dialogue is found for Splatoon 3, it can be documented on-wiki if it's judged to not be related to anything upcoming, or if after the update it's assumed to be related to is released it's found to still be unused. The event participation percentages that we note aren't upcoming content leaks.
 * The problem is not datamining itself, but rather the amount of times editors add datamined content that is completely unrevealed and not fully confirmed to the wiki ahead of every event/update. Yoshifan52 (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If copyright issues do arise I think it would be fine to make a few restrictions to leaks but a lot of the current ones are just strings of data so this doesn't seem to serious. 01:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I fast-tracked this proposal right after the news of major Side Order leaks came to light; a lot of people have suddenly joined the wiki Discord server in the past couple days specifically because of the leaks. I have wanted this policy changed for some time now, but decided to immediately ask for it to be put to a vote specifically to circumvent the potential problems that could be caused by Inkipedia hosting documentation of leaks as severe as those ones. Under our current written policy, documentation of those leaks is fully allowed, which is dodgy, though staff has already been internally following unwritten rules to not allow large leak documentation. Yoshifan52 (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be good, IMO, to re-focus this proposal (or clarify as needed) on leaks/datamining specifically about upcoming content – not old stuff that has been here for years that nobody cares about. –Eli (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In the opening paragraph of my proposal, I state the following: "the key term here is upcoming content leaks, specifically regarding Splatoon 3". The proposed textual change to the policy page is "Do not document leaked upcoming content on Inkipedia" (emphasis altered). All other datamines are allowed. I'm not sure how I could further clarify that this is specifically about upcoming content when it's already stated multiple times. Note the line "documentation of previously leaked content as well as datamined content irrelevant to ongoing updates would be allowed regarding all three games". Yoshifan52 (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out – nice! –Eli (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This policy proposal is successful, and is now policy. The vote is now closed. Heddy (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)