Forum:Halopedia Non-disclosure agreement

Forums: Index → Community Proposal → Halopedia Non-disclosure agreement

Proposal

This is my proposal if you call it one. For an Halopedia Non-disclosure agreement. Linked here. But pretty much it is to protect Halopedia, and anyone giving us confidential material, knowledge, or information. We need this in place so we have safeguards in place for the potential that people come to us with information or help. But I am here mostly asking for ways to improve this so it can be added to the wiki.

Votes

Please vote here!

Support (2/1) Sysop

Please use "# Support -" if you support this

1. Support — Of course I support this as I submitted it.-CIA391 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
2. Support - I'd like to see Halopedia become less moral and more objective. If there's a leak, as long as it's factual it should be included on the wiki. Wikis are about pure hard facts. Not arbitrary ethics of if it's morally wrong to share leaks or not.Editorguy (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

Neutral (1/1) Sysop

Please use "# Neutral -" if you are neutral to this

1. Neutral Not sure we really need an NDA. For one thing, NDA implies it's legally binding. For another, the current policy of not considering leaks valid sources, of keeping spoilers off the site until the product is released, and our general staying-under-the-rader-ness tend to make anything that might crop up with regard to this a moot point. At most, we talk to authors or other people who have officially contributed to Halo canon, like Stephen Loftus, and they know better than to pass along anything 343i really wants kept under wraps. -- Qura 'Morhek ^{The Autocrat of Morheka} 20:16, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

Against (5/0) Sysop

Please use "# Oppose -" if you are opposed to this

1. Oppose - Our spoiler policy is sufficient enough to cover this.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:42, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
2. Oppose - The use of a NDA is quite contrary to how Halopedia is run, with the availability and credibility of sources (both of which would be hard to come by with a NDA) being something that is held as one of the strengths of Halopedia. ~ navytuna 12:44, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
3. Oppose - See my comment. — subtank 12:49, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
4. Oppose - We'll be cool without it. Promoting only upstanding people from our contributors and maintaining such staff members now wards off any potential legal issues. NDAs can be breached just as easy as a non-legally binding secret. It's all about good character. Also, this is wildly unnecessary bureaucracy. Helianthus — All right. Shoot!
5. Oppose - As per everyone else. Not particularly necessary and not worth the possible ramifications. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:08, 31 October 2017 (EDT)

Comments and suggestions

Please put any comments or suggestions for this here.-CIA391 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

@Editorguy: Leaks, which are not always trustworthy, do not constitute as official sources. That's why they are not allowed.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:42, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

When Halo 5 was coming out, IGN released the first campaign mission with permission from 343 Industries. This revealed the death of Jul 'Mdama. I added his death to his article citing the IGN video, but it was weeks before the game's release. The edit was reverted and I was scolded on the talk page for adding such information. However the information was factual, Official (Published by IGN), and 343 Industries approved. Hence why I feel we should be purely objective when it comes to information.Editorguy (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

The Spoiler policy accounts for leaks and other similar stuff from outside Halopedia. This HNDA accounts for stuff Admins and Patrollers get privately. Without this, how can we be trusted with that stuff without them thinking we'd just release it the next moment we can.-CIA391 (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Official source means it comes directly from Microsoft/343i, not indirectly through third party IGN. You were not "scolded" as you say (this is going off topic so lets take it elsewhere or end it here).--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 11:21, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Legal is srs

While I understand fully what a NDA entails, this is something I believe no one in this wiki knows how to enforce given that it consist of users of different nationalities. Unless you've obtained legal advice on this, I recommend to cease using such concept which I think you don't fully understand the full legal repercussion. Do note that having an NDA jeapordises the independence of this wiki since information is kept secret between certain individual and there is no recourse to verify that secret information. Moreover, it goes contrary to what this wiki is about: free and transparent information based on open and available sources. In fact, that's the spirit of the wiki community.

There are two things certain in life: death and a breach of contract. If there is a breach of that NDA, the wiki will suffer and will likely be liable to pay damages (which can lead to the closure of this wiki). If you want to have an NDA, keep it only between the interviewer and interviewee. Do not drag the rest of the wiki members (including the administration team) into such arrangement.— subtank 12:49, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

What if one of us consults a lawyer to make sure this goes over smoothly? :3 Editorguy (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

I do guess the NDA thing suits the news section more than in general due to the fact thats what everything relates to mostly. But I thought the Staff might of wanted to have it there just in case they wanted to reach out or discuss stuff with Microsoft and so on. But hey ho if this does get outvoted it wont be made into an official thing for Halopedia staff.-CIA391 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

@Editorguy: And said lawyer would likely advise that it would be detrimental for the wiki in case of a breach.

@CIA391: No. It should not be anywhere in this wiki. A contract binds the parties and any breach may have some legal ramifications on those connected to the parties (depending on which jurisdiction you're in) or worse. Without having to go into too much detail, it's better off to remove such concept from this wiki. If you want an NDA with the officials, sign one with them but leave the wiki out of it. This, by all means, does not mean that you cannot use the wiki as a platform for your news: you can, but keep the legalities away from this wiki. — subtank 13:21, 31 October 2017 (EDT)

Conducting yourself in an honest fashion with respect for your partners, colleagues, and so forth is really all we need. An NDA is wholly unnecessary and has rather reckless legal ramifications if and when a breach of contract supposedly occurs. We should enter into legally binding agreements with companies as individuals and perhaps on behalf of Halopedia, not vice versa or amongst ourselves. As Subtank mentioned, we are free and transparent. We only ever need to withhold information with regards to media embargoes, internal wiki business, and the personal and professional concerns of our contributors. Halopedia demands staff of good character and nothing else. Helianthus — All right. Shoot!