Talk:Peer-to-peer file sharing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Created article[edit]

Established article with material from the file sharing article. Needs a clean up. There is also a peer-to-peer article for more technical stuff.--SasiSasi (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation 48 is very weak[edit]

It appears to be a blog, referencing the word of an anonymous researcher, who claims to have done a study that shows... In other words, it is impossible to verify the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't qualify as WP:RS; I removed the whole paragraph relying on it. Ipsign (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


I removed this from the intro "This concept of file sharing emerged after the widespread adoption of Internet service, and has now become one of the most used file sharing methods, especially for music and films. It relies on sharing files between two computers connected through the Internet."

Because: the “concept of filesharing” emerged long before p2p, and this article is about p2p. “most used filesharing” assertion needs a reference, because filesharing includes a lot of different methods, for music and films, which are equally widespread. "it relies on sharing files between two computers connected through the internet" I am really not sure whether this is the best summary of technical points behind Peer-to-peer (the technical stuff is covered in the p2p article]].

The rest of the intro also needs a reference.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have a reference for the "most used filesharing": When TPB servers went offline for some days, the total amount of traffic on the Internet in Europe dropped by 3/4. And this is for BitTorrent only. Therefore you can most probably say it is the most used from of filesharing... (Sorry, still searching for a link to source this, but haven't found one yet.)
mfg, OldDeath - 13:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
if you infer that and the source does not say that than it is original research. File sharing includes "manual sharing using removable media, centralized computer file server installations on computer networks, World Wide Web-based hyperlinked documents, and the use of distributed peer-to-peer networking (see peer-to-peer file sharing)." just because you have a source on how much traffic TPB took up, does not mean that you can infer that p2p is the most used form of "filesharing".--SasiSasi (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, if there is a source for TPB being responsible for 3/4 of the European internet traffic, then this is a source for P2P being the most used form of filesharing in the EU, as TPB operated as a BitTorrent tracker and BitTorrent distributes files via P2P. And if one form of filesharing over the internet (and you will agree that all other forms of massive filesharing are much less important nowadays than using the internet for that purpose) has (or had at that time) 75% marked share, none of the other forms can have more, right? (as there are only 25% left)
mfg, OldDeath - 14:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Your logic might easily be perfectly correct, but this is not the point: the point is that even if it is perfectly correct, it is not admissible for Wikipedia per WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTHESIS. If you can find some reliable source which says the same things as you do, it will become admissible. This is the way Wikipedia works, regardless if we like it or not. Ipsign (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
But if we are not allowed the easiest form of self thinking, how can we be allowed to write articles that often reformulate things that are said and described over several pages of length? *MeScratchesMyHead* I mean, that P2P filesharing is the most used form of filesharing is simply a fact that everyone who has some knowledge about the business will perfectly agree to - while at the same time it is that obvious that it will be very difficult to find reliable sources for it, just because it is that obvious that none names it. (Do you get what I mean?)
mfg, OldDeath - 11:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You have a point, the difference between reformulating and making own conclusions is not always 100% clear, but still there is a difference, and I tend to agree with SasiSasi that in this case it has crossed the line. About being that obvious that none names it - I'm pretty sure that if it is the case, it has been mentioned somewhere (probably outside of the P2P filesharing scene, but the more credible it will be). Finding it can be tricky, but that's a different story. Technically, in Wikipedia, if somebody challenges certain statement, "burden of proof" lies on the one who supports the statement, and SasiSasi did challenge this statement, so... good hunting for credible references :-), I'm pretty sure some should exist (though not necessarily supporting an exact statement you're defending, there can be subtle differences - for example, it might stand only for certain regions, or apply only if we exclude VoIP, or apply only to publicly routed networks, or whatever else; these potential subtle differences is one of the reasons why WP:VERIFIABLE is so important). Ipsign (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This articles neutrality etc.[edit]

Sorry, but it seems to me the only things this article really covers is how "bad" and "risky" filesharing is. If there is no major improvement (for example stating what the "opposite" sides says on the matter, talk about clients and networks (at least some of it to give kind of an overview), a history section, something about its advantages, etc.), I suggest we either merge this content into the legal article again or we delete it completely. Under its current form, it reads more like one of these advertisements of the media industry to keep people away from piracy and filesharing in general, stating it being "bad, bad, bad" - and this is clearly not what Wikipedia is all about.

Redirection from internet Piracy?[edit]

I searched "Internet Piracy", and it redirected me to Peer-to-peer File Sharing. Not all Peer-to-peer is Internet Piracy. Yes it does seem like a blog, and very one sided. It should be explaining Just what peer-to-peer is, and nothing one sided.

one sided[edit]

mfg, OldDeath - 17:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it definitely seems one sided. It is mostly reporting arguments that argue file sharing is bad. (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Added NPOV template to article header.
mfg, OldDeath - 13:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction for kids and the jargon-challenged[edit]

Millions of Wikipedia users are turned off by terminology used thruout our website.

I suggest we consider starting such articles with an optional, simple real-world, low-jargon, explanation of why P2P has come to exist. Something like ...


Imagine you have written a novel but publishers and printers have rejected it. You are sure readers will enjoy your book so what can you do? With the internet available, you can send your book, as a file, to a website which has a large and powerful computer called a server. This website will then make your book available to anyone who wants to read it. All for free.

Or, imagine you enjoy reading books on your computer at home and want access to lots of book downloads. Again, for free.

Before 1999, writers and readers had few choices in life, but now there is a very easy way for us all to share files. A book is a text file, but other files contain pictures, movies, music, and many other kinds of information. So, if I have a movie I want to share, and you have some music, we don't even have to meet face-to-face. By sending our files to the central server, everything is handled easily at home.

In fact, every day millions of people visit these online servers and download and upload millions of files. This process is called people-to-people file sharing, abbreviated as "P2P".

Some people say that when I buy a movie DVD the movie company still owns the rights to all the information on that disk. Most governments agree with this idea, but not all. Other people say that sharing such movies, music and books, while technically illegal in some places, is still a good idea because it helps all people to understand each other better, and promotes communication all across the world.


Wiki is, or should be, for us all!!

Dr. Villeval's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Villeval has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The economic analysis of peer-to-peer file sharing is poorly developed. References are missing, especially regarding the public goods dimension of peer-to-peer sharing and the analysis of property rights.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Villeval has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

  • Reference : Julie Beugnot & Bernard Fortin & Guy Lacroix & Marie Claire Villeval, 2013. "Social Networks and Peer Effects at Work," Cahiers de recherche 1320, CIRPEE.

ExpertIdeas (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New category: Peer-to-peer software[edit]

Hello, I've just created Category:Peer-to-peer software for all kinds of peer-to-peer software. Please help by populating it.

Also it looks like almost all entries in Category:File sharing software should get the category added - not sure what the best way for that would be: should I use a tool to automatically add the category to all of those and then remove it off the few non-peer-to-peer ones or should I add it to each article by hand or what would you suggest?

--Fixuture (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

added paragraph on communities, from User sandbox FwdF[edit]

I added the paragraph on communities. The first draft of this article was created by User:FwdF, as part of the module Be Bold on Maastricht University, 2015. It was copied and edited from User:FwdF/sandbox. --Dick Bos (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed banners[edit]

As most of the issues, that were raised in the "banners", have been solved - as far as I could see -, I removed all the banners. Perhaps someone who is well informed on these issues can check the complete text once more. Thanks and greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)