Talk:AllPeers

Totally Unprofessional

"After P2P software and instant messaging, it's internet browsers' turn to allow content sharing." This is totally a personal opinion.

The article should be completely cleaned up. --71.163.74.162 01:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Stub

Marked as stub. Needs WAY more content. --ALIENDUDE5300 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Links

Added Links to Other Articles on Wikipedia. ALIENDUDE5300 02:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

cruft/ad-like-prose

i removed a ton of cruft and ad-like prose (like linking allpeers to its website at every mention of the word 'AllPeers'). trimmed the linkfarm at the end in accordance with WP:EL. also not that wikipedia is not a blog - we don't need the blow by blow for each version featurette. it now reads like an article instead of a product-push. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 07:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot is not a screenshot

Note that the "screenshot" is actually a capture of our website. What's more, it's a page from our private beta that doesn't exist anymore. I'll try to get someone here to deal with it. comment added by 80.95.104.81 ([1] attributed by Widefox 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC))

Future Development Section

I noticed the re-added the Future Development Section; I removed it because of WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until these things are added they should stay out of an article. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

many fixes

Many problems - mostly fixed.... I'm concerned about WP:COI, WP:NPOV

• User:ALIENDUDE5300 - do you have an affiliation with AllPeers?
• 80.95.104.81 please sign your comments [2] here, as per guidelines, preferably by logging in to aid discussion.

inetnum: 80.95.104.80 - 80.95.104.83 netname: BN-JANODVARKO-NET descr: Jan Odvarko descr: Praha descr: Czech Republic I would be much happier if those affiliated to AllPeers signin and let it be known of the potential conflict.

I added back the Firefox TOC - please do not remove - it allows navigation, and is on all Firefox extensions. The problem with layout is fixed. The main problem is the article - it is a stub. It is also an advert, without a single reference. Closed source proprietary is not Free Software - removed. The image was not a screenshot - commented out until a real screenshot is put in. Widefox 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from AllPeers

I'm affiliated with AllPeers. I'd rather leave it to the user community to edit this page as they wish, but I would like to know at least what we would have to do to get the "this is an advertisement" message off the article. What about it makes it read like an ad to you (note that as far as I know no one affiliated with AllPeers has contributed anything substantial to the article)? What kind of references do you want? I will also get someone to put up a proper screenshot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plasticmillion (talk • contribs).

Here we go: [3]. The tone was made to look less like an AllPeers download page and more like an encyclopedic article. I also put in two references and talked more about technology behind the extension. 'Features List' was removed; it doesn't really add much - this shouldn't be a place to laud its accomplishments but a place to bring up notable facts and move on (darknet tech, bittorrent is fine, 'Supports All File Types and Sizes' and 'Personal Buddy Lists' aren't). The wikibooks and commons links were links to an add entry and a screenshot which is already on the article sos they were removed. The firefox template didn't mention AllPeers, so it was removed. I removed the 'reads like an ad' warning template, because I hopefully fixed the tone. JoeSmack ^Talk 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for abstaining to edit the article as you are affiliated with the project. As per references - no blogs. But, refs from tech news websites are ok, but things like NY Times and the like are best. See WP:RS for more on that stuff. JoeSmack ^Talk 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, looks good. I'll go ahead and add some more references from proper news sources when I get a chance, and I'll have our graphic designer post a screenshot. Hope that's okay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plasticmillion (talk • contribs) 10:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry plasticmillion, but even references and screenshots from those affiliated aren't really condoned - it's Wikipedia policy. I know it's like 'oh, edit ANY article...but this one...no sir...." - but the problem with those affiliated, is that it is inherently POV, and wikipedia has a strict NPOV stance. Maybe the graphics guy only posts a screenshot of a really good instance for the program, and not a day-to-day one. Maybe the references you post to are all favorable or more favorable than a non-biased person would post. I'm not trying to be mean, untrusting or picky here, but do you see what might happen if all owners could edit their own company or product entry? A very slanted wikipedia... You might have to leave the rest to the community.

But you should still stick around! Theres lots of stuff you can contribute to I'm sure. And I'm more than happy to answer any questions you might have, big or small. Hope this helps! JoeSmack ^Talk 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just point to the article from our blog and maybe some users will be motivated to expand it as appropriate. Thanks for your guidance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plasticmillion (talk • contribs).

Perfect! If you could remind them that it should be encyclopedic and use reliable sources, t'would be best. Thanks for understanding. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 17:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Open Source

Note that as of today, AllPeers is open source (see http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/03/07/allpeers-goes-open-source/ for more information).

Only the client extension is open source, not. The servers remain closed source. "Note, however, that we are only opening up the client side of our product. Our various server-side modules will remain closed source since our network depends on having a single, stable instance of this servers." http://developer.allpeers.com/ 80.47.209.198 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct... sorry, should have been explicit about that. BTW: The text is now inconsistent since it says "open source" in the first sentence but then "Even though it is closed source..." in the second paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plasticmillion (talk • contribs) 09:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Removed p2p client template

I removed the {p2pclient} template but maybe some could add this to Comparison_of_file_sharing_applications. But form this article is am not sure if this is a anonymous application (like freenet) or just bittorrent with Protocol obfuscation (not anonymous) :Leuk he 09:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Version 0.70.x and Firefox support

Note that we released version 0.70 a few weeks ago, and in fact version 0.70.1 came out last week. The big news is that the software now adds support for standard BitTorrent downloads to Firefox. This makes downloading BitTorrent files as easy as downloading normal files from the web (sorry, I sound like a marketing guy, but this is the discussion page after all). Here's a good up-to-date reference: http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3699316 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.95.104.81 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)