Talk:Shareaza/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

Added more references to the article and expanded the history part a bit (I used parts of the material Wout000 has written). By the way, are slashdot and torrentfreak articles valuable sources? Old Death (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"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)

Huh? I agree Wikipedia is there to inform, which is exactly why I suggest we increase the visibility of the scam - I propose it should have topmost prominencya among the facts for this article's subject. That will make it much easier for the average reader to understand the facts and decide for themselves. Thank you. (On how to go about this, please see the "How can we improve visibility..." section below) CapnZapp (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ynhockey: last I heard, Wikipedia was about serving the public, not serving the corporations. I refuse to accept your reasoning. Esn (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

"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)

Agreed (that is, I disagree with Chris Cunningham that nothing special should alert the visitor there's a hijack attempt going on) CapnZapp (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

I looked at WP:NAME but couldn't find any specific entry that felt right for this case. What is "FOSS"? Could you be a bit more specific? Anyway, I believe this suggestion is meant to highlight the fact that just reading up on "Shareaza" or using the program carries a significant risk you'll download the wrong program and go to the wrong site. I believe we should fix that, but I agree (I think I agree at least) not by a disambig page. CapnZapp (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

I've read the second archive, and still haven't found an answer to this question. Could you be a bit more specific, Neglacio - are you (via the archive) responding to Pol098's specific suggestion, or his general concern that this article isn't clear enough on the on-going scam? CapnZapp (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How can we improve visibility of the takeover/scam?

Currently, nothing suggests there's anything wrong with Shareaza, unless you read the small print very carefully (i.e. all sections). Is there any template or standard formatting that we could highlight that before you use this program, you need to pay attention to this very sneaky scam?

I know Wikipedia isn't an instruction manual, but it would be very helpful to prominently note shareaza.com is not the legitimate home on the web for this project/product. CapnZapp (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Wikipedia is not a guide to the Internet. Wikipedia is not a guide to current events. Wikipedia is not one's mother. This is entirely non-unique to Shareaza, and the information required is already presented sufficiently. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"the information required is already presented sufficiently" -- I disagree. How do we proceed to reach a consensus? CapnZapp (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We wait for input from others, we consult the style guidelines and documentation, and we argue a bit. This process generally works pretty well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's the deal. I realize you (along with Neglacio and others) are content with having the article remain the way it is now regarding the level of exposure it is giving to the scam issue. As you've realized, others aren't - including me. That's fine, we have different opinions. That doesn't mean the article should remain in its current state. Now, my goal here is to arrive at changes which you can agree to - rather than barging ahead, making edits that you might shoot down as not following policy and/or style guides, I'm turning directly to you here on the talk page. In other words, I would like to ask you to contribute by suggesting how I go about increasing the visibility of the scam issue in a Wiki-friendly way (assuming this is what is stopping you from agreeing?). Furthermore, I would like to respectfully ask you to stop preventing users from making these kind of changes (reverting their bold edits) without in return making helpful suggestions, again giving insights on how to go about the change in a way that's agreeable to you. Just referring to various policies, old talk archives, and style guides I find is more a deterrent against change than showing a real drive towards reaching consensus. Please prove me wrong, CapnZapp (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I read your comment on my talk page, Chris (to restrict the discussion to the most recent section only for archiving purposes). So feel free to answer my questions above here instead. Such as, what is "FOSS"?. Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FOSS is free and open source software. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As my first attempt at answering the question (How improve visibility of the scam), how about adding a "current event" template? This would ideally catch the user's attention and direct it to the existing section detailing the issues regarding "version 4". CapnZapp (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

NO NO NO NO NO! Shareazav4 is just another scam. there are tons of these already and none of them have been mentioned here. There are a few differences that make this case unique and they have been mentioned. Please remember that this article is about the real shareaza. This is not a news page! I am a shareaza dev so I understand the rage you have against these people, but please don't vandalize our entire article over these scumbags Cyko 01 (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

general discussion on takeover scams

As a second possible way forward, could someone direct me to a discussion on software and takeover scams in general (I'm sure it must exist). Perhaps it's possible to suggest a new template for scammed software which we then can apply to this very acute case? CapnZapp (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty important, in my opinion. Although Wikipedia may not be made for these things, we need to be realistic. Wikipedia is a large, open project and I know no one here wants someone to get infected with adware, etc. I'd suggest going the current events route. iMesh and Bearshare suffered from being taken over (by the same company using various fronts) but no one posted much information about it, and now all the articles talk about is the current application and how they were 'purchased'. We need to let users know while simultaneously keeping with Wikipedia's goals. 69.177.200.165 (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Excessive Mention of Shareazav4

Shareazav4 is just another rip-off of shareaza, there are TONS of these out there and none of them have received any special recognition on this wikipedia article. However, there are a few things that make this case unique that affect the real Shareaza - the domain name change, the trademark dispute, and the use of our update mechanism to distribute Shareazav4. These have all been sufficiently covered and there is no need to draw any more attention to them. Enough of this nonsense already! Cyko 01 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Forks and nightly build links

This is not a resource site - we exist to provide a description of notable things. The only notable application here is the primary Shareaza release build - no reliable third-party sources have covered the other applications (especially the nightlies) in anything other than trivial details. The Flox P2P article was deleted due to precisely these concerns. These should be removed again, as part of the process of ensuring that this article looks neither like a portal not an advert. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should let Cyko express his opinion about this, since he is the main dev of FLOX... But I certainly agree with you this is not an advertisement page... In fact we are interested in this article to have good quality standards, since it is representing for our project... By the way: why did you remove the links to the articles about software comparision of the different networks? These articles give a good overview over the functionality of Shareaze (compared to other clients). Also, the only of these links you let on the page was the one about ed2k software. This is completely inappropriate, since Shareaza's ed2k support isn't that good at all (and it is the network with the smallest importnce for the application). At least the G2 comparison article should be named, since this is what Shareaza is really known for (and it is it's most advanced network).Old Death (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to look before reverting, both comparison of Gnutella2 software and comparison of Gnutella software have been merged into their respective parent articles, so only one link is needed. As for Cyko's opinion, what we need is less people with an obvious conflict of interest shaping this article, not more. I'm going to remove these links again, per our notability guidelines. When Panthera has received significant coverage in multiple third-party sources (or indeed had a non-beta release) it might be worth including. As for the nightlies link, our external links policy discourages placing more than one link to the same domain. Three is a bit much. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

actually I have nothing to do with the Flox project. I think Neglacio is the man you are looking for. Cyko 01 (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree on removing the links to the beta pages. It's OK now, becasue we will have a stable release during the next (two) week(s). Your 'de-futurisation' of the article was in fact useless, becasuse in a week, I'll have to readd the sentence (stating the v2.3.2.0 features). I also agree on removing the links to the G2 comparison page, since the article has been merged [...] (By the way, I already thought about merging these two articles, but I didn't find the time to do it).

But I still disagree on the removal of the Panthera related stuff, since Panthera is really important for now for the Shareaza community (and for big parts of the better informed filesharing community, because it is has become a symbol for the resistance against companies like iMesh Inc. etc.) --> look at the torrent freak article on the external links part.

By the way, a comparison table is to give everyone a comparison between different clients, and only because a client has no large userbase or no wikipedia article, that doesn't mean the information isn't useful on a comparison table. That's why even the 'not-notable' and those without wiki article have to stay there: because in order to provide a decent and helpfull comparison between the existing clients, even the little ones have to be there. Because if we remove them from the tables, we in fact limit the user's choice when looking for a P2P application fitteng his needs. For example, removing the PocketG2 (of whatever was the name) reference in the table, we make it impossible for a user (after having looked at the table) to know about the existance of a g2 app for windows mobile, which might be exactly what he is searching for. Even if there are no article and no external links, the user knows about the existance of the appliaction and can focuss his search on it.

(I'm sorry if not everything here is 100% clear, but my English is not that good :p) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Death (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Panthera

The team behind the Shareaza client have recently had a tough time, having been the victim of a music industry conspiracy to steal their brand name and destroy goodwill. Undeterred they are fighting back and today proudly announce the development of a brand new filesharing client with BitTorrent support - Project Panthera.

So the dev team had to relinquish the Shareaza name after all. Oh well, as soon as this is publicly announced, I trust the self-appointed guardians of this page can make edits that make it clear the remaining Shareaza program (v4) is a hoax, and that readers are to navigate to the Panthera page (when it has been created) for the former true Shareaza program! CapnZapp (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no 'remaining Shareaza program', since development on Shareaza continues. Pantera is a side project which ensures the community to not to loose everything once the Shareaza name falls. (In case it falls, after all, this is not sure right now) Old Death (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Story: Shareaza, iMesh, RIAA, and Recent Events

This forum post written by a Shareaza developer has many flaws, namely the following:

Several parts of the forum posts "sources" are linked to other original research, in violation of WP:OR, to quote some parts of the O.R. comments:

1 - "Installations of which removed the existing Shareaza and functioned as spyware", with the word "spyware" pointing to further O.R.

and

2 - "Actions are now being taken in the name of "Discordia Ltd.," evidently an empty Cyprus shell company for "iMesh Inc."

Besides further O.R., there is no proof available as to Discordia Ltd. being an "empty shell" company. This could further be classed as libel - see Libel

In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.

The source is also highly questionable, see WP:QS

1 - "As of September 2008, one former community member faces a multi-million dollar lawsuit for 'aiding and abetting copyright infringement' as relates to this forum.

and

2 - "Of note, one volunteer effectively withdrew from the project last year after a ranking iMesh contact offered him large sums of money to disrupt Shareaza. Others have withdrawn in light of recent events or faced personal lawsuits."

Such serious statements are NOT backed up by a single piece of evidence in the article, nothing is even mentioned by TorrentFreak on any of these subjects where most of the articles on this Wikipedia page seem to link to. If there was any truth behind both these statements, then I'm sure a reliable news site (TorrentFreak, Slyck, P2Pnet.net, CNet or similar) would have picked up on them, especially the accusations of "a ranking iMesh contact offering large amounts of money to disrupt Shareaza". Again, highly libelous against the iMesh Inc. company and such strong statements should not be included as part of the source.

To further add, I appreciate that sometimes the best source to get information from on topics like this are the sources themselves of where 'the action is taking place'. However comments like those mentioned in the sourced material above are not from a neutral point of view WP:NPV, Questionable WP:QS and include Original Research WP:OR, and as such, do not belong here. 84.70.254.87 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you did good there. You're correct that it is very important that any questionable material be sourced to reliable third parties. With any luck some references will be found. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be right in some points, but for example the "As of September 2008, one former community member faces a multi-million dollar lawsuit for 'aiding and abetting copyright infringement' as relates to this forum." part is 100% true (I cann assure this to you since I know the concerned person. So, for me, this is a fact rather than original research.)

And about the "spyware" thing... How would you call an application which once installed on your PC starts logging your actions to a specific file?

I just entered shareaza.com + spyware into goolge...

http://www.appscout.com/2008/01/beware_the_fake_shareaza.php

http://digg.com/tech_news/Shareaza_com_Hijacked_and_Turned_Into_a_Scam_Site

Small edit: What do you think about this: does this give (in relation with the official statement that Discordia is running shareaza.com) gives evidence about the relation Discordia/iMesh? http://www.aboutus.org/Shareaza.com

Old Death (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You really need to have a look at the definition of primary sources and original research. The article's main problem right now is that the majority of the content is derived from the first-hand experience of a set of Shareaza community members. A statement cannot be deemed to be appropriate sourced if it is derived entirely from primary sources or personal experience. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Old Death, I am not concerned about the relationship between iMesh / Discordia or any claims of spyware, the reasons behind this discussion are about the justification of the removal of the SOURCE from the article for having serious issues conforming with the requirements for Wikipedia, reliability, neutraility etc, basically what Thumperward mentioned above. 84.70.254.87 (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement of 'Panthera'

I currently find several things wrong with this section, and personally feel the entire thing should be deleted, but shall leave that for discussion.

In order to make it sound less like an advertisement, I propose that it should read as follows

In order to be prepared in case of the loss of the Shareaza trademark issue, the Shareaza developers are creating a second application (codename 'Panthera'), which is currently in the alpha development stage.

and would leave it at that.

This new client has cross-platform support, which had been planned for a long time for Shareaza, but couldn't be implemented due to Shareaza's dependency on the Microsoft Foundation Classes;

Sounds like an advertisement.

The new application is planned to provide all the features that Shareaza has now, such as library management and support for 4 different P2P networks, and new and rebuilt features.

Is clearly an advertisement.

The new project is also planned to have a completely redesigned plugin system as well as using the LibTorrent libraries for its torrent support.[15]

Again, it sounds like an advertisement.

It should also be noted, that this article is about the Shareaza program, NOT what the Shareaza team are up-to and how they plan to 'combat' the current trademark situation. That information can clearly be found elsewhere under the external links currently in place at the bottom of the article, should someone wish to investigate further. 84.70.254.87 (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no... I don't have a problem with rewriting the section, make it contain less advertisement like stuff etc. But I would like you to know that 'Panthera' is what has to be called the future of Shareaza, because as it looks like now, Shareaza has many problems that can only be solved by completely rewriting the code (+ the trademark issue). Therefore we decided to work on Panthera, which will first run as a side project and then replace Shareaza in a year or two. So, somehow, it is Shareaza. Somehow not. By the way, Panthera is also called ShareazaV3 (Because it will be the next 'big' step: v1:Initial release; v2 : OpenSource ; v3 cross platform and completely rewritten...)Old Death (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)