Talk:BitTorrent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
November 3, 2004 Peer review Reviewed
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

the BitTorrent entry is perfectly fine - please don't dumb it down ![edit]

it's a really good article - it's clear and precise !

I completely agree, it's perfect how it is. Provides precise information, but simple enough for people with no CS background. Jakesyl (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I support that. If only all articles were written like this one! As the years have gone by, it might need an update to the current state of things. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.24.67 (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

POV problems[edit]

This article currently has POV problems. For example, the Adoption section does not mention anywhere that BitTorrent has also been adopted for copyright infringement. Although BitTorrent does have many legitimate uses (I've used it for legal downloads myself), there are studies (e.g. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-on-bit-torrent-confirmed-to-be-legal/ ) (maybe there is a more up-to-date one somewhere) showing that a majority-vast majority of downloads are infringing).

It's totally appropriate to mention the legal uses, but having an Adoption section and lead not mentioning copyright infringement is like having an article on tanks without mentioning war. Relegating this to a "Legal issues" section is not adequate. Mattflaschen - Talk 19:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is sufficient to have the legal issue only, cause the article is about the technology, the protocol. So the adoption section provides the information on more or less different implementations of the protocol/service. Your point that "is like having an article on tanks without mentioning war" is thereby not valid cause it is not about tanks it is more about the steel, engine and other parts that is used to make tanks. I dont think i need to include world war II in every article about engines. Of-course this protocol has some controversy but there is a legal issue section which is more than enough. i think there are plenty of articles in wikipedia that specially addresses the copyright infringement issues regarding peer to peer protocols. so no need to further intensify the matter. Nibir2011 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Read WP:CSECTION. It's ok to cover criticism/legal issues in the "legal issues" section that deals with file sharing. Note that email allows people to send copyrighted attachments (see ICanHazPDF), but is not officially intended for copyright infringement as a technology. Thus copyright infringement is not covered as a "use" of email in the Email article. -- Callinus (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

"First a bit of history-and-culture stuff. I was working on Mojo Nation, in its secret pre-launch mode in early 2000, with Jim McCoy, Doug Barnes, Greg Smith, and Bram Cohen..." "Mojo Nation lineage went through a series of restarts and a changing lineup of performers. Err, I mean of programmers. During this time, Bram Cohen left Mojo Nation and invented BitTorrent. The goals of BitTorrent can be seen as a subset of the goals of Mojo Nation. I learned from the success of BitTorrent that it can help to limit the scope of features you are trying to combine into one software project. " https://archive.is/SqYkz#selection-71.2178-71.2248 (https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2011-July/006560.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.71.62.41 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hyper distribution[edit]

Yes it might be arcane and with only a few references, but as long as it is an article it fits here. If hyper distribution is not sufficiently notable then please take its article to AfD and only remove the link to it if it gets deleted, but until then the link in BitTorrent is quite appropriate. Eno Lirpa (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


Skewed POV[edit]

I see that it is not a new topic of concern, but the introduction (and indeed the article) leans heavily towards a subjective perspective rather than objectively what Bit Torrent does or how it works. I also noticed there isn't really a 'legitimate uses' discussion to counterbalance the potential copyright infringement negative light. (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)