PMBD

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 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 causality of the paysite controversy was popular site retailsims.com [7] who after closing urged other paysites to also close in protest.

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 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 and on wikiperdia itself, apparently.

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

I found out about PSMBD because people on S2C were bitching about it and mentioned JM, so I hopped on over to MATY and found my way over here.  8)

I find it funny that people who will not give out the link to the site at all or allow it's name to be mentioned (Like Mrs. Retail Sim), will go and mention Pescado's name like a million times, as if one could not just Google it and with minimal brain usage figure out the way to the site.

I find it funny that people who will not give out the link to the site at all or allow it's name to be mentioned (Like Mrs. Retail Sim), will go and mention Pescado's name like a million times, as if one could not just Google it and with minimal brain usage figure out the way to the site.

There is a paragraph under the Custom Content section. I don't see how this bears any relevance to The Sims 2 article. I don't mind if its briefly mentioned, but this seems like a publicity stunt largely on the fansites closing in protest.

Explanation, please. Sillygostly

    It strikes me as a way of getting exposure for the sites involved - by having the links included in the "controversy". I don't like the paragraph, but what do you folks think? Robovski 23:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    It bears relevance to The Sims 2 custom content section though. It's a main topic discussed in many of the custom content communities and is notable since The Sims community is one of the few, in fact the only one I'm aware of, that charges for user content. It defiantly needs to stay in some form and as it is right now it's only about 3 sentences which seems fine to me. I don’t see how it could be made anymore brief than that. I could see trimming it down if it was a huge paragraph but it’s not. It also only links to three websites. http://www.retailsims.com/ is notable since it’s the only website to shut down and http://paysites.mustbedestroyed.org/ is also notable since it is leading the attack against paysites and http://thesims2.ea.com/ which is just a reference as well.--Carmilla 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    The cited sources really don't meet Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guidelines. These "community fights" happen all of the time. They're often biased and they're not really encyclopedic. If it's covered in detail a major newspaper or two, it may become notable, but it's not anywear near notable. A great example of something similar that is actually notable was the "Sims Online Mafia" story. It was covered in many major TVs and newspapers. --Kunzite 01:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    There was something on fandomwank, but that's not exactly a newspaper. Frankly, I doubt the papers care, so it will never become notable- even though almost everyone in the custom content community knows about it and hotly debates it. I'm in favor of leaving a few sentences in at the least. Kuronue 14:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the thing is with the not mentioning the site or giving out the URL but screaming usernames in all caps has a lot to do with stupidity but not in the way you're thinking.  I don't know what the download traffic is like here but the fact that there are less than a thousand registered members at the forums tells me that the average simmer just isn't internet savvy enough to figure this stuff out for themselves.  They have to be pointed.  So if you leave out things like the sites name they won't think to google Pescado's name.  That lj post in TS2 community had a post like that.  Someone mentioned that PMBD wasn't the only one and mentioned SFV by name.  Someone actually asked where it was.  As if google doesn't work?

If your average simmer wasn't much smarter than a box of used tissues, there wouldn't be a market for paysites.

...Says the one with the zombiewtfbaby head.   :P

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

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

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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



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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

It is short-sided and willfully ignorant to believe the argument regarding that entry has anything to do with censorship and or money.

The argument (and I know this for an absolute fact since I started the farking argument) is whether the entry is valid according to Wikipedia official policy stating articles must be written from a neutral point of view.




The above quote is:

1. Is contentious (Involving or likely to cause controversy)
2. Self-serving (Since the source is from Paysites Must Be Destroyed)
3. Involve claims about third parties (ie: Not a direct spokeperson for EA nor a paysite owner)

At best the quote is nothing more that anecdotal. And again has no place as an encyclopedic entry.

It is short-sided and willfully ignorant to believe the argument regarding that entry has anything to do with censorship and or money.

The argument (and I know this for an absolute fact since I started the farking argument) is whether the entry is valid according to Wikipedia official policy stating articles must be written from a neutral point of view.




The above quote is:

1. Is contentious (Involving or likely to cause controversy)
2. Self-serving (Since the source is from Paysites Must Be Destroyed)
3. Involve claims about third parties (ie: Not a direct spokeperson for EA nor a paysite owner)

At best the quote is nothing more that anecdotal. And again has no place as an encyclopedic entry.

I don't care what anyone's reasons are. I don't want the site associated with Wiki-vandalism.

STOP VANDALIZING THE FRIKKEN WIKI!

I didn't think anyone was still doing this.  I was pretty sure this was all after the fact commentary.

This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.