The Sims Wiki talk:Policy

Pay sites
What is 'The Sims Wiki's' policy on pay sites? I noticed that TSR is only mentioned on Pay sites. I believe them to be the biggest pay site. In my opinion 'The Sims Wiki' should declare colors and offer a more adult article on paysites. It should explain that selling custom content for real money is not allowed since EA owns ALL rights to anything in this game. I can find the exact part of the EULA which says it and have had an inquire with EA tech support, stating that selling Sims stuff is illegal. Since selling the stuff is illegal, we should have no trouble in linking to MATY's excellent forum where you can find items from paysites for free (let's not link to the official EA created stuff though, double standards, but EA has the law on their side). We are already linking to MATY's main page. If anyone gives trouble they can't legally do anything about it since anything created for the sims is not the property of the creator, it's EA's property. EA owns anything about the game and whenever you start the game you agree that you are only playing with their permission (a permission which includes you agreeing to not selling anything).

I see two options regarding pay sites: 1. Be neutral, like now and secretly avoid linking to them. 2. Condemn pay sites and make it against the rules to link to them. In this scenario 'pay sites' includes anything from monthly subscription, to pay-per-item, to items only available to donators. All items on the site has to be free or it's a pay site.

Why don't EA just sue the pay sites? Well, it's all about politics really. If EA set their mind to it they could have lawyors and a bailiff round to them and shut 'em down faster than no one's business. BUT doing this would cause of case of the big evil corporation vs. the small good creative contributor, EA doesn't want that on their image. Pay sites are essentially motivating creative soles to be abit more creative, since they get payed in return themselves. In the long run: More custom content (from pay sites or not) = More custom content, without EA lifting a finger. Doesn't take a genius to see that that's a sweet deal for EA.

Question: If pay sites were shut down wouldn't that mean less custom content? Answer: In theory yes, but that would be exactly like if you stop illegally copied games, there'd be less copied games. Removing pay sites would only diminish the already illegal part of the game. My reasoning here is informing visitors to our site that what pay sites are doing is against the law and NOT link or mention them, which in return hopefully won't direct any of our readers there. Duskey ( talk )( blog ) 22:07, June 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the duty of the wiki, or any wiki, to provide facts and information. That being said, I don't think it's fair to favor free sites over pay sites (or vice versa), even if there is a legitimate reason for doing so. In short, I'd rather see links to all the sites or links to none of the sites, but I don't think we have the right to pick and choose, since doing so would be showing support for one side or another, and would diminsish this wiki's credible claim at neutrality; when this wiki loses its neutrality, it can no longer be treated as a factual database. LostInRiverview (talk)(blog) 22:49, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, it shouldn't be the place of this Wiki to determine what is against the law or against EA's policies; if EA wants to push the issue, they're certainly capable of it. At best I believe we should reference the issue but not claim in either direction as to its legality. Something along the lines of "The concept of Pay Sites may violate the EULA, but EA has yet to press the issue or seek legal action against so-called pay sites." Again, I encourage neutrality. LostInRiverview (talk)(blog) 22:52, June 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Duskey, I disagree with you, and agree with LostInRiverview. This wiki should not "declare colors" or take sides in the paysite/anti-paysite dispute. Being neutral, and being seen as neutral, is good for the credibility of the site. Also, our job here, as I see it, is not to provide legal advice (I don't know about you, but IANAL) or to encourage people to visit or avoid any particular sites or type of sites. Dharden 23:45, June 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. -Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That being said the article, Pay sites, does not actually describe the controversy it merely states that there is one. --a_morris (talk) 02:36, June 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I see, you've proven your points. I guess I'll have to subdue my loathing for pay sites while I'm on Sims Wiki. I'll probably do my best to describe the issue of sims pay sites sooner or later, should be an interesting test of character, unless someone beats me to it, I'm not reserving rights here or anything.
 * Just for the sake of discussion (I'm not gonna do any of this, I just think it's interesting discussion): Won't linking to pay sites be abit like linking to pirate sites with the sims on them? The only discernable difference I see is that EA actively enforces their copyright in regards to pirating, but not custom content. Also linking directly to torrents or torrent sites is a no-no, right? How about linking to a google search with the keywords 'sims 3 torrent'. Weird how those two examples would be treated differently. Duskey ( talk )( blog ) 03:21, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The original creator should be attributed just like images. A screenshot of a google search would be more appropriate than a link. --a_morris (talk) 14:31, June 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Original creator of what? Not sure I get what you mean. Duskey ( talk )( blog ) 21:42, June 21, 2010 (UTC)