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)