Forum:CT:Preparing for TOR

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Preparing for TOR

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was ban all NDA-breaching content regarding Star Wars: The Old Republic from the site. Remove any such content as soon as it is noticed; admins are to consider the contributors of such content to be disruptive, and act accordingly. Graestan(Talk) 15:58, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

With the beta of Star Wars: The Old Republic approaching, I thought it might be a good idea to establish some consensus on a couple of issues. This CT contains two proposals, elaborated on below. Please do not add any additional voting options to this CT. --Imperialles 23:13, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

NDA

Early-access beta testers will almost certainly be bound by a non-disclosure agreement, intended to stop leaks. What we have to decide is whether or not to accept NDA-breaching content being added to this wiki. As far as I can tell, these are the pros of allowing such information:

  • We get the content early, which might entice people to browse our site for information.
  • We start organizing the information from this canon behemoth as soon as possible, to achieve a greater encyclopedic standard of quality as fast as possible.

The cons:

  • Hosting the NDA-breaching information is probably illegal.
  • By hosting NDA-breaching information, we attract negative attention from the companies behind the game. Cease and desist notices have been frequently employed in similar cases by other MMO developers (notably Blizzard Entertainment).

I propose we outright ban any addition of NDA-breaching content, whether it take the form of text or files. Any such information would be subject to immediate removal, with severe consequences for the offender (to be decided by admins on a case-by-case basis).

It is perhaps worth noting that as soon as BioWare or LucasArts lifts the NDA, the information would be more than welcome on our site. --Imperialles 23:13, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Don't accept NDA-breaching content

  1. Per my arguments above. --Imperialles 23:13, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Seems very obvious. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:36, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Seems like a no-braner. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 23:40, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  4. NDAs usually exist for a reason. Thefourdotelipsis 23:51, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  5. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 00:07, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  6. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:13, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 00:19, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 04:14, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:48, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  10. For the record, I'm against adding info from books and stuff before their official release date too. -- I need a name (Complain here) 19:19, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  11. I suppose I'm in favor of a general rule preventing the addition of non-promotional material or content prior to a product's release date. Although Wookieepedia would not be legally liable under an end-user NDA, it's clear that BioWare's offical and legal stance is that the Beta is not considered promotional. SinisterSamurai 19:32, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Now that we have official word, I don't see that we have a choice. It's either police it actively, or respond to a flurry of official requests. Might as well stay ahead of the paperwork. Sigh. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 19:35, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Though a general no TOR rule would be preferable. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:39, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  14. If they explicitly say no then we can't really argue. NAYAYEN:TALK 20:19, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  15. —Tommy 9281 20:40, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  16. Grunny (talk) 21:19, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  17. We serve at Lucas's pleasure, and publishing this stuff in breach of his latest cash cow's NDA is likely to rankle. ~ SavageBob 07:21, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
  18. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:07, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
  19. -- 1358 (Talk) 18:10, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
  20. --Jedi Kasra (comlink) 18:46, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
  21. That info will get to us sooner or later. No need to rush things and risk our reputation. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 02:59, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  22. BioWare's email makes it clear that we shouldn't cover it, as much as I would love us to. OLIOSTER (talk) 13:15, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  23. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 19:51, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  24. Had I not been away, I would have seen this earlier. I'm glad people decided that copyright vios from leaks are a bad idea. Once the game is released, we go after it. Prior to that, we are participating in a series of actions that does not constitute fair use. After the game is released, we can then use fair use to help what is essentially promoting LFL's product. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 15:21, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  25. Makes sense, and besides, material changes over the course of a game or other media's evolution before its release. If it was cut or removed, it is technically not even canon at that point. I'd prefer to stay away from C&D's. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:46, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Accept NDA-breaching content

  • We've always accepted information from official sources prior to official release dates, and I don't see a reason to make an exception. And I honestly don't think it's worth adding to the administrative workload to specifically police this. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:40, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Culator. 1)These updates are going to happen. Culator makes a point about policing it. 2) An NDA would be between BioWare/LFL and the beta tester. As Wookieepedia didn't agree to an NDA or to being bound by a fansite agreement, it's not legally our problem. 3) BioWare's writers may unrealistically want to avoid spoilers, but I guarantee that this beta is as much a part of their marketing strategy as it is a part of their development strategy. They'll want people talking TOR up. 4) The most they could do is issue a C&D for copyrighted images, or request we take the information down. I don't see this being a legal or technical problem for Wookieepedia at all. At most, you'd be looking at a few burned bridges between LFL and one of the largest Star Wars fansites in existence. SinisterSamurai 04:24, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  1. Content from a game is content from a game. No difference who submitted it or when. And it is independently verifiable (assuming at least a few Wookieepedians are Beta-testers (if not, then we won't get the information anyways, so it's a moot point). And if the content gets erased prior to release, then we'll know right away and the info will be easily moveable to Cut Content. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 13:35, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  • While I agree that we should pay lip service to the NDA, perhaps we might be able to have people write up the information on non-linked-to user subpages, so that when the NDA is lifted, we can instantaneously implement all this stuff. But I don't know whether just having it on a subpage is still an NDA breach or not. Thefourdotelipsis 23:51, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • That can just as easily be done offline in a file on your own hard drive, which eliminates any question of legal issues. It's quite easy to write something up in full wikicode in Microsoft Word, as long as you disable "smart quotes" in the AutoCorrect menu. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 00:07, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, yeah, of course. I only hope that people can co-ordinate, so that we don't have umpteen dozen people writing the exact same thing. Thefourdotelipsis 00:08, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Legality aside, can you even consider the information verifiable? If one person leaks this NDA information, there's no way to verify that information and the wiki would only be taking them at face value. That's enough of a reason to approve this proposal right there. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 04:22, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

The entire point is moot if there is no such NDA, correct? I can almost guarantee that there won't be one. And if this passes, Wookieepedia won't be assuming an NDA exists, will we? I see us losing a lot of potential information (mostly future BTS info) by agreeing to this policy. There are already images and removed content from Galaxies that will never see the light of Wookieepedia simply because the information didn't exist by the time it was cut. SinisterSamurai 04:31, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

  • What do you base that on? Pretty much every closed beta test I have heard of, and particularly for big budget games such as this, have had NDAs. Cut content is not covered by an NDA. Furthermore, you seem to think the NDA is some clever way of making people talk about TOR. No, it isn't, or they wouldn't have made a non-disclosure agreement. I assure you they could do a lot more than ask us to take down a couple of images; LFL could seriously cripple this site if they wanted. Which is why we have always played nice with them. --Imperialles 09:38, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
    • A) After thoroughly reading the terms and conditions, there is a non-disclosure clause, and screen captures are considered confidential information under that clause. B) Yes, obviously an NDA is a way to shut people up. A public beta however, is a way to both test and generate hype. C) A key word in "Non-Disclosure Agreement" is the word Agreement. BioWare would be unable to pursue Wookieepedia under the guise of an NDA, simply because we didn't agree to it. LFL or BioWare might be able to pursue Wookieepedia under copyright law, however, but that's a risk that would stand whether we accept TOR Beta materials or not.
There are basically only two arguments against allowing those materials. 1) Verifiability. As it's a closed public beta, it'll be difficult to verify claims made on Wookieepedia. 2) The Social argument for keeping LFL happy, because Wookieepedia is currently in massive violation of copyright law and could come down at any moment. BioWare's NDA doesn't enter into it, legally speaking. SinisterSamurai 18:11, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
      • And it's worth risking that LFL will get really mad at us, or even shut us down, just so that we have some information on a video game a few months early? Really? Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:24, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

BioWare e-mail

I contacted BioWare on the issue, their response is below. I, for one, think we ought to listen to them. --Imperialles 19:13, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, it will depend on the content. If it's someone who's theory-crafting and it isn't really obvious that they have access or not; not as big of a worry. Someone who's blatantly taking info from the game and posting it is a (much) bigger issue.

If you could notify us whenever you see something like that, we would definitely appreciate it. If it's screenshots or game assets, we'll be asking for them to be removed since that is well-covered under the Game Tester Agreement as a no-no.

Thanks for contacting us about this beforehand, btw. We really do appreciate it!

Citation template

Given the enormous scope and open world-nature of The Old Republic, I propose we promote usage of a citation template for TOR references. It would look something like this: 

{{TORCite|context}}

The context field would be used to describe the context in which the information being referenced was found. The amount of detail supplied would be entirely up to the individual editor, but it wouldn't hurt to mention things such as specific quests or situations. This would increase the verifiability of our articles without being a major hassle.

I should note that this template would be for references only, not Appearances lists. --Imperialles 23:13, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Promote usage of a citation template

  1. Imperialles 23:13, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Darth Culator (Talk) 23:40, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Specific referencing is always good. Grunny (talk) 23:42, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  4. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 23:43, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Thefourdotelipsis 23:52, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  6. --Eyrezer 00:05, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Per Grunny. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 00:08, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:12, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  9. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:14, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 00:19, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  11. All aboard the bandwagon! Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 04:14, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 13:35, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  13. NAYAYEN:TALK 20:19, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  14. —Tommy 9281 20:40, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  15. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:08, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
  16. Instructions regarding this proposal will have to be put here.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 18:48, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
  17. Go ahead and make one for the KOTOR games too please (unless there already is one and I've somehow managed to miss it); they are also structured very similarly. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 03:10, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  18. -- 1358 (Talk) 06:54, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Don't use a citation template

Discussion

If this passes, I will make a "SWGCite" template as well, seeing as content in Star Wars Galaxies is presented in a nearly identical fashion to TOR. --Imperialles 23:49, May 11, 2010 (UTC)