Forum:Altering COD:LEAK

Forums: Index → War Room → Altering COD:LEAK

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Now, I'm certain everyone is aware of COD:LEAK. And I'm certain most users know why it is in place. For the short story, we were contacted by Activision/Infinity Ward after we posted the plot line to some MW2 missions prior to the release of the game, after which we no longer allowed any leaked material on to the mainspace. I would like to propose that we alter this a bit. I understand the policy is in place for legal reasons, so I do not wish to remove it entirely, but I feel that we can get away with posting some leaked information without violating Activisions legislation. What comes to mind is items such as the leaked achievements, from these we can establish multiple facts, such as mission names, game mode names and achievement names themselves, and since none of these reveal any real plot line we should be perfectly fine to make pages on them, since clearly Activision and Infinity Ward don't seem to mind that these achievements have been leaked (lest Xbox360achievements would have been asked to take them down) then there should be no issues with us taking as much information out of these achievements as possible. Now the real issue that I see is plot line, I feel the main issue that Activision/Infinity Ward had with us was that we posted the plot before release, as such, that should still be banned from mainspace prior to release, however, I feel that we can now be a bit more flexible about the information that we post.

Furthermore, should Activision, Infinity Ward, Treyarch or any other Call of Duty related company disagree with this change then they can simply contact Wikia and/or us again and we can put the policy back the way it was. <rant>However since the Wiki hardly gets any of the fancy things that YouTubers get, such as exclusive beta tests and sneak peaks, I feel we should be able to make this change without any of the companies actually taking any notice</rant>.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

09:31, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Support — As forum writer.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

09:31, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support — Agreed. YT guys can post videos, and we cannot make pages? Looks like good ol' greedy ATVI, eh? -- Slav^Talk 13:05, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support — -- laagone ^(talk)  13:07, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support — Per Sam. Minor leaked content such as weapon names or achievements should be allowed on mainspace articles, but we should still enforce the policy on anything larger that could be considered "spoilers" and is clearly from pirated versions of the game (Full campaign mission walkthroughs before release, etc). http://i.imgur.com/4XBy83R.pngAntiScootaTwo^talk  13:44, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support — I definitely see Sam's point on this one.  Kylet357 · talk  17:49, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support — Per Sam. Things that are considered major spoilers, such as an entire video of a leaked mission and its gameplay, should fall under LEAK. But minor things such as achievement names, which in-turn, we obtain mission names and some characters shouldn't be disallowed. Argorrath _{おしゃべり}22:20, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support — Per Argo, if things like Achievements are leaking and not removed, I don't see why not to add the information. http://i.imgur.com/GhKJh.pngP90^Deathmanhttp://i.imgur.com/uceaHlB.png22:32, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support — But only if we're voting specifically to allow leaked achievements, and not just a more lenient attitude for when things get leaked. Joe Copp 12:38, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Essentially when something minor gets leaked we can take all the info from it that we can. Example; if an achievement names a character, weapon, location or mission we didn't already have then we can make a page on it. However we will need to ensure we limit this information so it doesn't post any plotline, so pages may only consist of "X is a Y in the upcoming Call of Duty: Ghosts".

Crazy sam10 • Talk

12:41, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Very Strong Support - Very good idea here. I think we don't really need to keep COD:LEAK like it currently is. Altering it is a good idea. Per Sam and Argo. Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly  21:52, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Support — Per everyone above me. I don't need to say anything more http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/009/1/b/fennekin_animated_by_thunderboltelemental-d5qw861.gif Maxxis^<FENNEKIN!> 04:55, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

Support — Per all.  http://i.imgur.com/GYKM9PK.jpg feargm^talk  06:14, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

Support — Per all. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 20:56, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose — Contact them first, then reintroduce this I say. Regardless of how the local wiki feels about it, Activision should still be contacted first, just to make sure we've covered our asses from a legal mess. Pierogi^Talk 01:54, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that if we did wait for approval, it would probably take a long time for them to respond, if they even bothered at all. I'm not even a fan of the saying myself but I think "ask for forgiveness, not permission" applies here pretty well. We'll need a solid, working system especially in the coming weeks. Joe Copp 04:39, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, this would be a waste of time. Activision shows little care for the actions of the wiki and several other sites, some probably more popular, are able to report on leaks without issue. There's no reason that we shouldn't be able to ever so slightly modify the policy. We aren't removing it, or it's primary function (preventing leaked videos), we're just changing it. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 05:02, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Wikia deal with that stuff, not us      09:34, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

As I recall we're still waiting for Activision to reply regarding if the Wiki could have access to Call of Duty: Online. Chances are Activision would either take so long to reply (or not at all) that this forum would be closed over inactivity. As I basically stated in my rant, Activision only really sets up time for anyone that promotes their game, namely the YouTubers, we don't get anything shiny.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

02:28, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Support — This is basically already written in COD:LEAK itself:

Leaked information may only be used in articles if it was either intentionally or accidentally leaked by a company involved with the production, development, and/or distribution of the respective game.

N7 TC 11:38, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

While true, that rule change mainly just got added for when the information comes from an official source, such as shops, which is why we added it for Black Ops II when stores started showing off DLC before official announcement. This change allows us to add information that's from other sources that can still be verified, such as Xbox360achievments.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

02:33, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

One thing: what happens to early game releases (e.g. last year BO2 got released early in some countries; also... Vengeance, i think, got out early on Xbox)? -- Slav^Talk 12:52, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

I believe they do not want users who receive the game early (even if in another country) to add content until its official release in the US. Furthermore, DLC's are a different matter, as they are released on Xbox early, probably for better profit. So don't add information if you receive the actual game early (even if its legally). 50.174.59.8 14:39, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

Early game release are still considered against COD:LEAK, since those games were given out before the official release. Something which gets a lot of developers and publishers quite annoyed.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

16:05, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

Semi-closed - Until a neutral admin can officially close this forum, I am enacting the changes of this forum due to the high amount of support. We are now more lenient on leaked information until Activision tells us otherwise.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

13:18, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - The changes have already been enacted. There is no point in keeping this open. Joe Copp 13:46, November 20, 2013 (UTC)