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.

User:Kjhf/Sig 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. – Espyo^T 15:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)