Talk:Shareaza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shareaza article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

	Free software Portal This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Amateurish notices, again 2 References 3 "Domain transfer" will not catch attention 4 Mods 5 "Scam site" references 6 Commercial Shareaza split? 7 Mention of "v4"

[edit] Amateurish notices, again

So now the infobox has a big superscript in it claiming "illegality" andother nonsense. The removal of this was recently reverted becuase it had been "discussed" - it certainly was discussed, but the outcome was not permission to turn this into a file sharing news blog. I'm going to remove this again, because the issue is covered adequately already. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I do everything I can for Shareaza, but do not f*ck up the layout. They should read it in the article itself. Neglacio (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

I don't see why there would be a need for more references. Can someone clear this out? Neglacio (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the references we have are unreliable (they're forum posts, or news blog posts), and they're used unevenly. Surely a site like CNet has done a Shareaza review? Maybe a bigger news site has covered it? The references are adequate for a B-class article, but we should be looking to significantly improve them in future. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

CNet is quite a bit paranoid. They only use real people to get their references from. And I don't see why a big site would report about this? If they would, they would get the wind back from anti-piracy organizations... Only P2P and tech sites report about this.. Neglacio (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS applies to all articles, not just ones which don't have problems with the RIAA. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

When forum is the official support forum of the said software and the posts are from the developpers of that software, isn't the forum post one of the most reliable reference. These times, lots of things only leave tracks online and even big sites take their sources from internet... When the chain of information is official forum to lot of blogs, slashdot and some forums and then to big news and tech sites, shouldn't the origin of the information be the most trusted source ? 212.68.194.100 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Vapula

I agree about forum posts. You can tell a users' status on the forum, such as Developer or Consultant. I, personally, am a developer (werwin) for the Shareaza Project, and can confirm things on the forum, or even post it on the SourceForge site if the forum somehow does not suffice for legitimate information.Werwin01 (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Domain transfer" will not catch attention

The Shareaza v4 issue is quite a big problem, and it would be good for people who come by here to take note of the issue. I see it is in fact covered in the current version, however it is present in a manner that might lead to quick-lookers to overlook the problem. "Domain transfer" doesn't directly hint at the problem. A change of that heading or a bolded word in that section would be enough to make it a more relevant section. However I'm going to add a little to the introductory text since the problem is large scale and ongoing, though I expect it to be reverted or edited out since that's how things work. --67.165.251.114 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to do that. Only 3 000 people has switched or left Shareaza. A considerable low amount for the 250 000 people there still are average. Now it's relatively stable again. Numbers based on: http://crawler.trillinux.org/history.html Neglacio (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did you see Shareaza mentioned on that page? It only referes to Gnutella2. F (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Shareaza makes up 95% of G2. If you loose 3K users, it'll certainly be because of Raza ;) Neglacio (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is a huge issue which may lead to the collapse of Shareaza's branding/recognition. It should be a prominent section with an identifiable title. The Shareaza domain takeover was recently on Digg's front page, so many users will be visiting this this article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As much as I am a Shareaza fan, making any moves to specifically inform users to avoid the scam would be against everything that Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is there to inform, and let the user read the facts and deicde for themselves. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mods

I don't understand, sorry. But what's wrong with the mod section? Does it need references? If yes, from where? Greetings Neglacio (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, Wikipedia's sourcing policy cannot simply be ignored when it's difficult to find sources. Surely someone other than the author of these mods has had something to say about them. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Scam site" references

I've removed these again. I don't believe that continually drawing attention to the Shareazav4 thing helps the quality of the article, nor do I believe that we are inadequately covering the potential for problems with it. This kind of hijacking and product spoofing happens all the time in software, and Shareaza's instance isn't any more notable than that of other applications. Furthermore, the references used were to blogs and forum posts, which aren't reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

While I understand where you are coming from I think this a pretty important issue that needs some mention in the article. Right now shareaza.com is the first site that pops up in a google search, it looks legitimate enough, and the download it provides contains spyware. While I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to be an update warning site about the various scams that happen across the internet, I think a brief word of warning is warranted in this case, as anyone looking at this page is most likely interested in downloading shareaze and this information directly pertains to them. I will wait for other people to weigh in on this before I make any changes. -Uselesswarrior (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There should at least be a note referring to the fake software. F (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. This is important information that users need to be made AWARE about, and let them choose for themselves if it's needed, but I think this information should be allowed to be referenced to.Werwin01 (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. This information is objectively useful to users who'd like to know more on Shareaza, so IMHO it should be mentioned. The current text looks acceptable to me as it is neutral and based on facts. Little disclaimer: although I do my best to be balanced and objective, I'm nevertheless a Shareaza fan. --anon 89.2.144.133 (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial Shareaza split?

What about this: If the commercial Shareaza wants to have comments of it's own, it should make its own article and write it with what they think is right. This would go according with the NPOV, because two organizations will not be fighting about one article. When the trademark dispute has been done, they may use the main article, but a disambiguation should be kept. But this legal issue hasn't been solved yet, and due to copyrights, the advantage is still on the opensource side. 81.83.228.160 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of advertisements. Articles aren't written by the producers of products, and don't belong to them. Two articles with different POV don't add up to a NPOV. The open source Shareaza was the original, and it's fairly clear that the commercial one is a deliberate copy which attempts to pass itself off as the "true" version. If there are separate articles, anyone who wants to find out about Shareaza in Wikipedia may fall into one or the other, where information about both versions is required to form a judgement. Pol098 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why I find it a good idea to maintain a disambiguation, but using the main article as a link to the opensource one. From there on, you can stumble into it. But if the trademark has been lost, it's quite clear that laws should be followed (even if they're very disputable, sadly enough). But a disambiguation should be the main article then. Neglacio (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NAME; this dispute has been going on for months now, so there's really no excuse for parties involved in it not to be fully up to speed on Wikipedia's relevant policies. Almost any time someone links Shareaza on Wikipedia, they mean the FOSS application. Therefore, it should be the focus of the article located at Shareaza. "Laws", especially disputed trademark laws, have absolutely no standing when it comes to naming articles on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of "v4"

Someone who comes to this article may well find "v4" when seeking to download the program, mistaking it for the open source version. While the article needs to be objective and non-judgemental, it does need information to inform the reader that 2 versions exist and that care is needed to choose the right one, whichever is preferred. So I think it appropriate to add something like this to the introduction:

A commercial program introduced in 2007 which also calls itself Shareaza, version 4 is unrelated to the original Shareaza (currently at the lower version number in the information box on this page).

and this at the beginning of the Features section:

This section refers to the free, open source Shareaza program. The commercial Shareaza version 4 is different, and also includes functionality to store information on users' activity for unknown purposes[[1]].

The reference is to a forum, but it's a detailed posting giving useful information which can be verified by installing V4, unless someone has a better source of this information.

When I added this information it was reverted. It didn't seem to go against anything in the discussion at the time; perhaps people will express their opinion for or against a mention of v4 in the introduction and in Features. Pol098 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, read the second archive ;) Neglacio (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)