Talk:Google Wave

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Google Wave article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet B‑class Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Better description ?

At the moment it's just a collection of buzzword and it deosn't make a lot of sense for those who don't already know what it is about. Someone should try and describe it in one/two non-techy sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.69.178 (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I came here to find out what it's all about, having seen it on the TV news, and I'm no wiser than before. Is it because no-one quite knows what it is yet? Peter Harriman (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more that it's difficult to describe than that people don't know what it's about yet. It took an 80 minute presentation for google themselves to properly explain it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.156.79 (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also written too much like a marketing statement and not enough like a neutral article. "Google Wave is designed as the next generation of Internet communication?" Come on, now. --DuckFerret (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Is the name a reference to Serenity/Firefly? -Johnm4 (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I saw several Firefly references in the video. Lars referred to something as "Shiny", and Jens had a snippet of prepared c&p text: "Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal." They made a connection that I can see, but I'm not a reliable source. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down to "wave" in: http://www.fireflywiki.org/Firefly/CortexLexicon 93.173.13.61 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this article I found is reliable enough? The writer just confirmed that the 50 developers working on this project are Firefly fans. http://www.itnews.com.au/News/104396,opinion-googles-wave-drowns-the-bling-in-microsofts-bing.aspx -- Valistar (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French translating and typo

I removed the note about spellchecker "ignoring" a french typo, because that is not correct. The translator translated "lus" as a tense of "read."

What may be interesting to note, is that the spellchecker did not fix that typo in the way it had fixed "been" and "bean" typos earlier. Sp3ctre18 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it was a demo, it's not yet possible to comment on any inconsistencies of the spellchecker between languages. Such inconsistencies can simply be the result the difficulty of simultaneously developing support for several languages evenly. -- EDG161 (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol Section Merge proposal

The protocol section is much to long. There is already a separate article on the Protocol. Imho most of the section should be merged/integrated to this separate article and the section should only contain 1-2 short summarizing paragraphs. With a link to the main Protocol article: {{main|Google Wave Federation Protocol}} at the start.

-- 91.14.215.166 (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Google Wave client and the Wave Protocol are two separate things, each with their own articles. -- EDG161 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Licence?

The article says that it is an open standard licence, but that is not really specific, while it will be open source, it is not a very specific for a licence, the only place I can find Google mentioning a licence is their draft specifications for the their Protocol: http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/. --Svip ^pong 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; Open Source is a broad term and there are numerous licenses that can archive that goal. However, that's all we can really say at this point. Google gave us a sneak peek, not their whole business plan. We'll just have to wait and see.

In my personal opinion, what they've done with things like the Android OS represent a precedent. That would be the minimum of what they would likely need to do, in terms of openness, if they truly want Waves to replace e-mail. EDG161 (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on User Federation?

Today, the Wiki says: "It should be noted that user-data is not federated (i.e. not shared with other wave providers). Aside from the obvious privacy reasons, there is simply no reason to do so." (emphasis mine)

Seems like the section author went out on a limb here.

Jonathan.lampe@standardnetworks.com (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is google wave just a realtime wiki with chat and email oriented capabilities?

Google Wave is a great idea, but it's not awfully original. There are striking similarities to some of the concepts in one of the hosted google apps called Radixmail. Here's a link to the cached version: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:0Cs_c-j8QmwJ:www.radixmail.com/+radixmail&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

I'd say that's a fair summary of its basic functionality, except whereas a wiki is visible to and editable by anyone on the internet, a wave is only visible and editable for those with whom it is shared. I guess you could say that it applies a wiki tool set to one-to-one communication—though it supports one-to-many communication as well. The one place where it surpasses wikies, in my opinion, is its use of operational transformation technology to prevent concurrent edits from colliding with each other. New technologies don't necessarily need to be completely original to have merit, and I think the improvements Wave makes to prior technologies are significant. Mazer (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selfish query

All I want to know is whether it will allow me to collaboratively edit a Word document with someone else on live on the net. The document share thing they have currently refreshes about every 20 seconds: that sucks, although it's better than nothing. Anyone know? Tony (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wave updates character-by-character, and you can see the other person typing live. --taestell (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that waves are not saved in the Word .doc format, but I'm certain that eventually a software developer, perhaps Microsoft itself, will release a plugin to export waves to .doc files. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft Word had an integrated wave client in 5-10 years. Mazer (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up to date info needed

The web is buzzing about wave right now, and the article is not reflecting the current status of invites or providing info that many news articles and blogs are. Wikipedia is always the first place I go for up to date information... Antonycarthy (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]