Sims 2 on Wikipedia

[Plum]

Edit 2. Plum, you rock, even if you have a very annoying avatar.

...Says the one with the zombiewtfbaby head.  

My avatar disturbs me also. Yours disturbs me in a different, more disturbing way.

I'll change mine if you change yours.  :wink:

Hell no.  Mine keeps me warm at night.

[lemmiwinks]

That is precisely what disturbs me about it. Mine is just an old doll's head being used as trailer hitch protector. (As if they needed protecting.)
It keeps me awake at night.

[jesserocket]

That is precisely what disturbs me about it. Mine is just an old doll's head being used as trailer hitch protector. (As if they needed protecting.)
It keeps me awake at night.

...Now I'm MORE disturbed by it. See, before, I just thought it was a mildy creepy, oddly moon-textured doll's head, I've seen worse in museums (the Dali museum, which, granted, is pretty creepy, but still). Now I know it serves a PURPOSE...leering blindly off the back of someone's home, in all weather, and....*screams and runs off*

[Caedre]

Pfft what kind of worthless pirate arrr you Lemmiwinks? As a pirate you should not be disturbed by such a suggesting avvy.. now I can stare the whole day at it.

[jesserocket]

Some "Adsummers" is removing a paragraph from the Wikipedia article to hide the facxt paysites are, in essence, illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims_2

If you have a Wiki account, revert this!

'He' appears to be a serial forum lurker, all I could find about 'adsummers' is that he's a member of assorted Sims 2 forums (MTS2, InSim, EyeCandy, Reflex) but doesn't actually post there.

I wonder what his angle is, in all this...

[Noodle]

Some "Adsummers" is removing a paragraph from the Wikipedia article to hide the facxt paysites are, in essence, illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims_2

If you have a Wiki account, revert this!

Fixed.

You don't need an account, just click "edit" and go at it.

[Captain Feathersword]

It's gone again. :roll:

[Célimène]

Question: Why is it fair, balanced and non-biased when it's only YOUR opinion YOU feel is being censored?

There has been some controversy as to whether paysites can legally charge for custom content since the EA license agreement states "You may include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website for the noncommercial benefit of the fan community for EA's products"[6]. Protest sites such as http://paysites.mustbedestroyed.org have started offering pay items from other websites for free stating that those websites are the ones that are illegal per EA games license agreement.[6]. The fact that paysites may not be legal and that other websites are offering these payfiles for free is subject to censorship on many of the fan communities The first casualty of the paysite controversy was popular site retailsims.com [7] who after closing urged other paysites to also close in protest.

Whomever wrote this Wikipedia entry is clearly expressing their own personal opinion. And as such this entry hasn't any business on an open source encyclopedia.

There has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, with the site receiving criticism for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality and inconsistency, systemic bias, and preference for consensus or popularity over credentials. Information is sometimes unconfirmed and questionable, lacking proper sources that, in the eyes of most Wikipedians, is necessary for an article to be considered "high quality".

The author of the qouted entry is obviously neither a spokesperson, representative, nor laywer for Electronics Arts. Neither I suspect, is he a judge charged with interpretation of the EULA for the Sims community.

He like others, is simply one person with his own opinion. I will respect his right to expressing it whether I agree or disagree. But there is no question that using Wikipedia to espouse one's personal agenda isn't appropriate.

[jesserocket]

Regardless of sides, bias, opinion, or whatever, it's still something which is happening in the Sims community, just as much as the stupid games censorship guy getting on his high horse about OMG PIXELATED NUDITY. Although I am a part of this, I have seen a lot more actual controversy, among fans of the game, about this topic than I have that, where everyone who actually knew anything about the game rolled their eyes and moved on.

The author of the qouted entry is obviously neither a spokesperson, representative, nor laywer for Electronics Arts. Neither I suspect, is he a judge charged with interpretation of the EULA for the Sims community.

Are you suggesting that all Wiki articles should be written by people of that stature? Because if you are, well, maybe I suggest it all gets taken down and rewritten by the technical 'experts'.

FACT: RetailSims took down their site, over this issue.

FACT: Rose, of RoseSims illegally shared PayPal details with others, over this issue.

FACT: Paysites Must Be Destroyed exists, and has made a sizeable impact on the community's thinking.

None of those things are opinion, conjecture, theory, or self-promotion. They are facts.

And THAT is why it is censorship, to keep having these facts removed.

[Pescado]

People, don't vandalize the Wiki, just leave it the hell alone.

[avic]

Question: Why is it fair, balanced and non-biased when it's only YOUR opinion YOU feel is being censored?

There has been some controversy as to whether paysites can legally charge for custom content since the EA license agreement states "You may include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website for the noncommercial benefit of the fan community for EA's products"[6]. Protest sites such as http://paysites.mustbedestroyed.org have started offering pay items from other websites for free stating that those websites are the ones that are illegal per EA games license agreement.[6]. The fact that paysites may not be legal and that other websites are offering these payfiles for free is subject to censorship on many of the fan communities The first casualty of the paysite controversy was popular site retailsims.com [7] who after closing urged other paysites to also close in protest.

Whomever wrote this Wikipedia entry is clearly expressing their own personal opinion. And as such this entry hasn't any business on an open source encyclopedia.

There has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, with the site receiving criticism for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality and inconsistency, systemic bias, and preference for consensus or popularity over credentials. Information is sometimes unconfirmed and questionable, lacking proper sources that, in the eyes of most Wikipedians, is necessary for an article to be considered "high quality".

The author of the qouted entry is obviously neither a spokesperson, representative, nor laywer for Electronics Arts. Neither I suspect, is he a judge charged with interpretation of the EULA for the Sims community.

He like others, is simply one person with his own opinion. I will respect his right to expressing it whether I agree or disagree. But there is no question that using Wikipedia to espouse one's personal agenda isn't appropriate.

Ummm.  Actually, it's a pretty matter-of-fact statement of the controversy, if you want to call it that.  And considering the fact that I'm not really in favor of file-sharing (in general) and haven't downloaded any booty, but I do understand and agree with stamping out bad paysites, I'd like to think I'm fairly non-biased.  

Anyway - please point out the opinion here:

1) There has been some controversy as to whether paysites can legally charge for custom content since the EA license agreement states "You may include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website for the noncommercial benefit of the fan community for EA's products"[6].
2) Protest sites such as http://paysites.mustbedestroyed.org have started offering pay items from other websites for free stating that those websites are the ones that are illegal per EA games license agreement.[6].
3)The fact that paysites may not be legal and that other websites are offering these payfiles for free is subject to censorship on many of the fan communities
4) The first casualty of the paysite controversy was popular site retailsims.com [7] who after closing urged other paysites to also close in protest.

1) Fact - there is controversy, and that's a summation of it.
2) Fact - PMDB is offering the files, and for that reason.
3) Gray.  Perhaps "The fact that..." should be changed to "The contention that..." or "The opinion that...", but the censorship is fact.
4) Fact.  Or perhaps it should read "One of the first..."

But really, it's pretty factual IMO.

[Noodle]

Looking through the history, this may be the original entry regarding the controversy from Nov 12:
(I could be wrong, there is a first time for everything)

There has been some controversy as to whether paysites can legally charge for custom content since the EA license agreement states "You may include materials created with the Tools & Materials on your personal noncommercial website for the noncommercial benefit of the fan community for EA's products". Protest sites such as paysitesmustbedestroyed[http://paysites.mustbedestroyed.org/] have started offering pay items from other websites for free stating that those websites are the ones that are illegal since they are charging. The fact that paysites may not be legal per EA games End user license agreement and that other websites are offering these payfiles for free is subject to censorship on many of the fan communities. The first causality of the paysite controversy was popular site retailsims.com [http://www.retailsims.com/] that closed citing that "I WILL NOT BE FORCED TO SHARE MY CONTENT ACCORDING TO THE WHIMS OF A SECOND-RATER" and then later urged other paysites to also close in protest. As of November 11th 2006 however this is the only site to have shut down although the site rosesims2.net [http://www.rosesims2.net/] has started banning people suspected of sharing files. The web master is also sharing information of these suspected people with other webmasters so they can ban them as well which has lead to accusations of rosesims misusing Paypal by sharing the confidential information with others in a possible breech of Paypal license agreements.

With so many passionate feelings going on way or the other. EA really needs to take a stand with the situation because this controversy won't go away until they do.

[yamikuronue]

What you don't understand about wiki is that it's not about truth, it's about verifiability and notability

Just because controversy EXISTS doesn't mean it goes in the wiki. Only when a major credible source writes about it does it get put in the wiki because it can be sourced to something credible. Forums are not verifiable sources. So until someone of importance writes about it, the controversy won't go in.

[Célimène]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view.

You'll note the above quote states ALL significant views. Not just yours, mine or as earlier suggested "people of stature" (Whatever that means. Perhaps really really really tall people?)

I would agree there has been since 2001 ongoing and heated controversy regarding paysites, EA's EULA, the layperson's varied interpretations of same, apparent non-enforcement of same and filesharing.

I would remind however that the very definition of the word controversy is an opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements.

And as such, the entry in question does not qualify for inclusion based Wikipedia's official policy. Continually adding it constitutes vandalism.

[yamikuronue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view.

You'll note the above quote states ALL significant views. Not just yours, mine or as earlier suggested "people of stature" (Whatever that means. Perhaps really really really tall people?)

I would agree there has been since 2001 ongoing and heated controversy regarding paysites, EA's EULA, the layperson's varied interpretations of same, apparent non-enforcement of same and filesharing.

I would remind however that the very definition of the word controversy is an opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements.

And as such, the entry in question does not qualify for inclusion based Wikipedia's official policy. Continually adding it constitutes vandalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Sources

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources.

English-language sources

English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

Sources of dubious reliability

In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:

    * it is relevant to their notability;
    * it is not contentious;
    * it is not unduly self-serving;
    * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
    * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.