![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seriously needs an update. Shortly after the last entry here, Alan Ellis was cleared of conspiracy to defraud, surely that is notable? I actually find the lack of information on OiNK to be kind of disappointing; it was only the largest private tracker ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.40 ( talk) 16:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
what, no word about eMule?!? it remains one of the largest p2p networks today. 62.0.186.85 ( talk) 19:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something about IRC on here? 80.177.208.41 21:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
i agree, it was once a common way of sharing mp3 and warez. 62.0.186.85 ( talk) 19:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
...should be on here somewhere.
then put it there
What should one cite when he states that a specific piece of software was originally published/announced at some time? Is it good enough to cite some web page were the developers state it. Maybe a link to some download site with an old time stamp be a good source? The article has lots of these and they will not get fixed unless someone states out the requirements. -- Easyas12c ( talk) 20:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've used the following as rationale for non-free logos on the pages of those logos:
"Given that the company or technology
the use of the image is covered by the relevant fair use laws."
I should probably clarify more, though. A good timeline should be supplemented by images. Two examples of this are Timeline of Apple products and Timeline of Apple II family. This article is not about physical products which we can take pictures of, so we use logos instead. This is what a logo does - it identifies a company or product in the same way a face identifies a person. The Kazaa ruling story in wikinews uses the logo for exactly the same purpose. It is about that company, so it uses the logo to identify the company. So,
and further,
This doesn't mean that we should plaster the timeline with logos, but the major networks, programs, and services (mp3.com, audiogalaxy, napster; gnutella, edonkey, fasttrack; bittorrent, suprnova, piratebay, mininova) should be identified. –M T 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
What about IBM punchcards? Sure, they hold a tiny amount of information: but they are storage media, and definitely are removable. President Lethe ( talk) 01:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the currently used date formatting looks just riddiculus and unproffessionnal. We shoudl go back to what it was before because it a) looked better and b) gave a better overview and c) was generally more professionnal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Death ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/trends?q=shareaza,+limewire,+bearshare,+mininova,+pirate+bay
Statistics for Shareaza don't really matter on their own - it could have 3 million users, but if the other networks have 7 million, it's just not notable enough. Mute is the single biggest client on the mute network, but that doesn't mean we should include it. Shareaza might be popular, etc., but it's not in the same league. –M T 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I put in my source for prior works. Linker which came out in 1994 was used for peer to peer file sharing of mp3 files and other files years before napster. Source is sited so if people have any integrity in wiki they will defend this properly sited information. The rewrite would seem like a blatant attempt to remove this properly sited prior work in an attempt to establish Napster as the first of its kind. Deathmolor ( talk) 03:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Now your accusing me of self publishing? I didn't publish that. As for USENET Reference i think you actually have to read it. You will see numbers of users and file sharing discussed being in place for years. I don't understand why you would not just read it. All the source information is overwhelming and you yet still continue try and rebuke it. I think at this point your just getting out of hand and need to stop Deathmolor ( talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Combining the insane number of sources What picture does it paint. 1. Usenet articles of the simtel upload (empirical information not subjective information) 2. the simtel archives themselves with down loadable executable. 3. usenet articles indicating discussions of linkers file sending being present since version 3.4 release or linker34. 4. the source code complete with copyright notice from 1993. You can combine with the simtel archive. Absolutely none of this can be faked. Its impossible. M your being completely unreasonable. What your asking for is not a combination of articles your asking for a quote from the president of the united states that linker was there first. I am completely stunned this discussion has gone on as long as it has. I trying to be civil with you but its hard to see you more then just someone looking to argue. Deathmolor ( talk) 04:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC). In fact i know your looking to argue since you have already indicated you wanted to argue here in a previous article, why is your intent to argue about this? And is it also your intent to argue needlessly forever? I am not likely to ever let this information be removed from Wiki. I believe the sources i provided are more then sufficient. Deathmolor ( talk) 04:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, you asked me for a review. There is exactly one of the sources that counts acording to the wiki guidelines: the 'book'
[3]. Although, there are several problems: Neither do we have an ISBN, nor author name or year of release, for example. Also, the book cites a source with a [2] behind the respective sentence, but the reference cannot be found somewhere in the document, nor can it be clicked on. Also, the book tells only 'it was the first one', but it gives no information about when it was released. If you could at least provide the ISBN and author of the book, it would probably be sufficient to keep the part on linker in the timeline, if you manage to prove the date somehow (which should not be too difficult).
As for the rest of the article, we should clean up the 'anti-napster entry'. "Some people say it was the first peer-to-peer software because Napster claimed it was." sounds really unprofessionnal and is certainly not a neutral statement. Also, the formulation of the passage could be changed in to something like 'although Napster used a central server to coordinate its network and proceed search requests, it was (the first (?) << see my earlier comments) system to implement a P2P structure for the decentralized distribution of its shared files.' or something with a similar meaning.
Per request at WP:3O, I have come here to render a third opinion (although it appears one was sort of already given - I am guessing this is because you already asked for advice on the sources.
In any case, here is the way I see it... There are several claimed sources here & I will address each separately:
Thus I don't see any way the claims regarding Linker can be put into the article at this time. If this software is truly what you claim it to be, surely it would not be hard to get a reliable source to publish the information. Try contacting some major computer magazines, heck minor computer magazines, with this story about "the first p2p software" that has now been forgotten. I am sure many magazines would love to write an article about this, if it is true.
Until the time that these claims are verified by reliable source, however, this is complete original research and doesn't belong. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived, as it does not relate to the article. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
First of all, I suggest all parties stick to discussing the article instead of trying to figure out each other's motives. Attacking the source of the information (the editor), is a logical fallacy and doesn't disprove their point in the slightest. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
Now, back to the article: I have copy edited the whole thing. I trimmed some excessive detail or irrelevant detail in parts and added some missing info. I attempted to neutrally word the Napster dispute - it is not really relevant to this timeline whether you call it a p2p network or not. Further work needs done in the following areas:
I strongly urge all parties to work toward consensus rather than merely reverting back and forth. This means, if you don't like a change someone made to try and hash out a mutually acceptable version rather than just changing back to your preferred version. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have only briefly skimmed the talk page, but there are 2 things which might be interesting for you. 1. Mailing lists are in fact usable as sources, please see the discussion on exim4. 2. Please see the WP:BLP section regarding self published sources, in a nutshell it states that selfpublished are permissible in some cases where they are autobiographical in nature. There is also the issue of parity of sources. Enjoy Unomi ( talk) 00:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should clarify the terms here. Original research is information that isn't found in reliable sources. This may take the form of drawing a conclusion from facts presented or it may stating one's own opinion as fact. Reliable sources are sources independent of the subject that have a history of publishing accurate information, primarily because they have editorial oversight to prevent the publication of false information.
The reason we can't use primary sources to verify (important) information is because the primary source has a clear motive to exaggerate or lie. Now, using the source to determine that Linker was a file sharing system is original research because it is a form of taking the facts and drawing a conclusion. Whether it is a primary source or not is irrelevant. If the source makes a claim about itself, it is a primary source because it is not independent of the final product.
Hope that helps. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately what does not help is that google has now been polluted with linker34 hits to wikipedia content. Considering the absence of sources which will not be challenged I would suggest that you concentrate on 'the next thing' rather than dwell on the past. Unomi ( talk) 09:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If you find any sort of semi-reliable stats, for any network, add them directly to this list the list in the article.
23:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The dates in the MMM dd format do not increase readability of the date over MMM/dd format, but the do make it harder for the reader to pick out concretely where the date ends and the sentence begins. The date is not beautiful, but short of turning the whole thing into a table (which makes editing very difficult), it's the best way to separate the date from the wording. 05:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
EZTV (www.eztv.it) continues to be a very important source of torrents related to television. This is especially true for Television produced in the United States.
Because of this, it should be added to the timeline.
Supexcellency ( talk) 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Uhm... wow.. No one got the bright idea of including a mention of WinMX? One of the oldest networks. Pretty lazy and pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.194.195 ( talk) 13:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a claim in the article that CBBS was the first BBS. Clearly incorrect as there were numerous BBSs in the previous decade on ArpaNet. Although I was a moderator on one and used others, I can't use that as a source as that would violate WP:OR. I don't know any sources since the ArpaNet was little talked about prior to the DARPA creation. That is why I softened the language to say "an early" instead of "the first." My language is correct no matter what the facts. The current language is debatable. Objective3000 ( talk) 01:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The image File:EDonkey2000 logotype.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
2014 had some pretty notable news to do with filesharing: ·Pirate Bay raided and down for the longest time in its history. Devs unsure of its future. ·UK ISPs such as BT block hundreds of filesharing sites Some sites only available through TOR network ·ISOhunt shutdown ·Mininova shutdown https://torrentfreak.com/archives/ contains hundreds of very notable stories and events in the filesharing world Elliott Stanley Music ( talk) 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Promo catalogs company kingdom credit 24.129.191.170 ( talk) 11:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The name got me curious and the link led to this page. /info/en/?search=Apple_juice
Maybe the Wiki page was deleted? And so it's redirecting to literal apple juice instead of the software 49.37.159.55 ( talk) 02:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seriously needs an update. Shortly after the last entry here, Alan Ellis was cleared of conspiracy to defraud, surely that is notable? I actually find the lack of information on OiNK to be kind of disappointing; it was only the largest private tracker ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.40 ( talk) 16:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
what, no word about eMule?!? it remains one of the largest p2p networks today. 62.0.186.85 ( talk) 19:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something about IRC on here? 80.177.208.41 21:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
i agree, it was once a common way of sharing mp3 and warez. 62.0.186.85 ( talk) 19:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
...should be on here somewhere.
then put it there
What should one cite when he states that a specific piece of software was originally published/announced at some time? Is it good enough to cite some web page were the developers state it. Maybe a link to some download site with an old time stamp be a good source? The article has lots of these and they will not get fixed unless someone states out the requirements. -- Easyas12c ( talk) 20:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've used the following as rationale for non-free logos on the pages of those logos:
"Given that the company or technology
the use of the image is covered by the relevant fair use laws."
I should probably clarify more, though. A good timeline should be supplemented by images. Two examples of this are Timeline of Apple products and Timeline of Apple II family. This article is not about physical products which we can take pictures of, so we use logos instead. This is what a logo does - it identifies a company or product in the same way a face identifies a person. The Kazaa ruling story in wikinews uses the logo for exactly the same purpose. It is about that company, so it uses the logo to identify the company. So,
and further,
This doesn't mean that we should plaster the timeline with logos, but the major networks, programs, and services (mp3.com, audiogalaxy, napster; gnutella, edonkey, fasttrack; bittorrent, suprnova, piratebay, mininova) should be identified. –M T 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
What about IBM punchcards? Sure, they hold a tiny amount of information: but they are storage media, and definitely are removable. President Lethe ( talk) 01:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the currently used date formatting looks just riddiculus and unproffessionnal. We shoudl go back to what it was before because it a) looked better and b) gave a better overview and c) was generally more professionnal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Death ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/trends?q=shareaza,+limewire,+bearshare,+mininova,+pirate+bay
Statistics for Shareaza don't really matter on their own - it could have 3 million users, but if the other networks have 7 million, it's just not notable enough. Mute is the single biggest client on the mute network, but that doesn't mean we should include it. Shareaza might be popular, etc., but it's not in the same league. –M T 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I put in my source for prior works. Linker which came out in 1994 was used for peer to peer file sharing of mp3 files and other files years before napster. Source is sited so if people have any integrity in wiki they will defend this properly sited information. The rewrite would seem like a blatant attempt to remove this properly sited prior work in an attempt to establish Napster as the first of its kind. Deathmolor ( talk) 03:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Now your accusing me of self publishing? I didn't publish that. As for USENET Reference i think you actually have to read it. You will see numbers of users and file sharing discussed being in place for years. I don't understand why you would not just read it. All the source information is overwhelming and you yet still continue try and rebuke it. I think at this point your just getting out of hand and need to stop Deathmolor ( talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Combining the insane number of sources What picture does it paint. 1. Usenet articles of the simtel upload (empirical information not subjective information) 2. the simtel archives themselves with down loadable executable. 3. usenet articles indicating discussions of linkers file sending being present since version 3.4 release or linker34. 4. the source code complete with copyright notice from 1993. You can combine with the simtel archive. Absolutely none of this can be faked. Its impossible. M your being completely unreasonable. What your asking for is not a combination of articles your asking for a quote from the president of the united states that linker was there first. I am completely stunned this discussion has gone on as long as it has. I trying to be civil with you but its hard to see you more then just someone looking to argue. Deathmolor ( talk) 04:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC). In fact i know your looking to argue since you have already indicated you wanted to argue here in a previous article, why is your intent to argue about this? And is it also your intent to argue needlessly forever? I am not likely to ever let this information be removed from Wiki. I believe the sources i provided are more then sufficient. Deathmolor ( talk) 04:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, you asked me for a review. There is exactly one of the sources that counts acording to the wiki guidelines: the 'book'
[3]. Although, there are several problems: Neither do we have an ISBN, nor author name or year of release, for example. Also, the book cites a source with a [2] behind the respective sentence, but the reference cannot be found somewhere in the document, nor can it be clicked on. Also, the book tells only 'it was the first one', but it gives no information about when it was released. If you could at least provide the ISBN and author of the book, it would probably be sufficient to keep the part on linker in the timeline, if you manage to prove the date somehow (which should not be too difficult).
As for the rest of the article, we should clean up the 'anti-napster entry'. "Some people say it was the first peer-to-peer software because Napster claimed it was." sounds really unprofessionnal and is certainly not a neutral statement. Also, the formulation of the passage could be changed in to something like 'although Napster used a central server to coordinate its network and proceed search requests, it was (the first (?) << see my earlier comments) system to implement a P2P structure for the decentralized distribution of its shared files.' or something with a similar meaning.
Per request at WP:3O, I have come here to render a third opinion (although it appears one was sort of already given - I am guessing this is because you already asked for advice on the sources.
In any case, here is the way I see it... There are several claimed sources here & I will address each separately:
Thus I don't see any way the claims regarding Linker can be put into the article at this time. If this software is truly what you claim it to be, surely it would not be hard to get a reliable source to publish the information. Try contacting some major computer magazines, heck minor computer magazines, with this story about "the first p2p software" that has now been forgotten. I am sure many magazines would love to write an article about this, if it is true.
Until the time that these claims are verified by reliable source, however, this is complete original research and doesn't belong. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived, as it does not relate to the article. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
First of all, I suggest all parties stick to discussing the article instead of trying to figure out each other's motives. Attacking the source of the information (the editor), is a logical fallacy and doesn't disprove their point in the slightest. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
Now, back to the article: I have copy edited the whole thing. I trimmed some excessive detail or irrelevant detail in parts and added some missing info. I attempted to neutrally word the Napster dispute - it is not really relevant to this timeline whether you call it a p2p network or not. Further work needs done in the following areas:
I strongly urge all parties to work toward consensus rather than merely reverting back and forth. This means, if you don't like a change someone made to try and hash out a mutually acceptable version rather than just changing back to your preferred version. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have only briefly skimmed the talk page, but there are 2 things which might be interesting for you. 1. Mailing lists are in fact usable as sources, please see the discussion on exim4. 2. Please see the WP:BLP section regarding self published sources, in a nutshell it states that selfpublished are permissible in some cases where they are autobiographical in nature. There is also the issue of parity of sources. Enjoy Unomi ( talk) 00:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should clarify the terms here. Original research is information that isn't found in reliable sources. This may take the form of drawing a conclusion from facts presented or it may stating one's own opinion as fact. Reliable sources are sources independent of the subject that have a history of publishing accurate information, primarily because they have editorial oversight to prevent the publication of false information.
The reason we can't use primary sources to verify (important) information is because the primary source has a clear motive to exaggerate or lie. Now, using the source to determine that Linker was a file sharing system is original research because it is a form of taking the facts and drawing a conclusion. Whether it is a primary source or not is irrelevant. If the source makes a claim about itself, it is a primary source because it is not independent of the final product.
Hope that helps. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately what does not help is that google has now been polluted with linker34 hits to wikipedia content. Considering the absence of sources which will not be challenged I would suggest that you concentrate on 'the next thing' rather than dwell on the past. Unomi ( talk) 09:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If you find any sort of semi-reliable stats, for any network, add them directly to this list the list in the article.
23:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The dates in the MMM dd format do not increase readability of the date over MMM/dd format, but the do make it harder for the reader to pick out concretely where the date ends and the sentence begins. The date is not beautiful, but short of turning the whole thing into a table (which makes editing very difficult), it's the best way to separate the date from the wording. 05:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
EZTV (www.eztv.it) continues to be a very important source of torrents related to television. This is especially true for Television produced in the United States.
Because of this, it should be added to the timeline.
Supexcellency ( talk) 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Uhm... wow.. No one got the bright idea of including a mention of WinMX? One of the oldest networks. Pretty lazy and pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.194.195 ( talk) 13:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a claim in the article that CBBS was the first BBS. Clearly incorrect as there were numerous BBSs in the previous decade on ArpaNet. Although I was a moderator on one and used others, I can't use that as a source as that would violate WP:OR. I don't know any sources since the ArpaNet was little talked about prior to the DARPA creation. That is why I softened the language to say "an early" instead of "the first." My language is correct no matter what the facts. The current language is debatable. Objective3000 ( talk) 01:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The image File:EDonkey2000 logotype.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
2014 had some pretty notable news to do with filesharing: ·Pirate Bay raided and down for the longest time in its history. Devs unsure of its future. ·UK ISPs such as BT block hundreds of filesharing sites Some sites only available through TOR network ·ISOhunt shutdown ·Mininova shutdown https://torrentfreak.com/archives/ contains hundreds of very notable stories and events in the filesharing world Elliott Stanley Music ( talk) 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Promo catalogs company kingdom credit 24.129.191.170 ( talk) 11:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The name got me curious and the link led to this page. /info/en/?search=Apple_juice
Maybe the Wiki page was deleted? And so it's redirecting to literal apple juice instead of the software 49.37.159.55 ( talk) 02:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)