Template talk:File sharing

Networks relevance?

Some of these networks are rather obscure. I have seen more, other, etc. Also the 'de-centralized' heading can be a link that takes the user to a list of all de-centralized networks. The structured/un-structured is another categorization that might be possible. The template seems a little cluttered to me. Bpringlemeir (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorting of the networks

I think we should readd semi-centralized, since eDonkey as well as BitTorrent are highly dependent from central servers that are NOT dynamically generated on need by the network and both networks are not able to operate without them.

Greetings, Old Death (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that we might get into some original research with this one. We don't really have a definition for centralization. What happens when the distributor of Kazaa is ordered to remove the program from the internet? Does this make Kazaa dependent upon a single source? Yes, it does. What about Freenet, which is very much peer-to-peer? If its initially configured peer nodes were removed, it would die. BitTorrent is perfectly decentralized, but what happens when you kill the trackers? eMule through Kad is decentralized. Napster isn't actually fully centralized, its transfer component is entirely peer-to-peer. If we had better criteria based on some actual work in the field, then this would be easier, but I don't want us to start coming up with weird classifications. I think we should stick to the classifications that are already out there.    M   21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything that is 100% capable of working without external dedicated nodes once an initial network connection has been established should be considered as decentralized. Networks (or other P2P structures, since BitTorrent is not a P2P network) that require connection to dedicated central nodes in order to keep functionality over time but exchange their data in a decentral (P2P) manner ought to be called 'semi-decentralized'. Networks (or other [...]) that rely on one or several central dedicated nodes controlled by one single (or a closed group of single) entity(s) (a company or a private person etc.) while using P2P for their data distribution should be called 'centralized' P2P. I think this is the most logical subdivision possible (and I think we should add this to the main P2P article as well in order to clearify the matter, as the article is not very specific about the issue in my eyes).

As for the possible 'own research' thing, I don't think we violate the rules by adding this definition, since it is a) common sense and b) the generally agreed definition (or at least the most generally agreed one I know of).

Greetings, Old Death (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So is bittorrent decentralized? I think it is. BitTorrent is definitely a P2P network. I think that some of these distinctions are arbitrary, and I don't really think they are widely agreed upon. Even the distinction between centralized and decentralized is pretty contentious. We could always get more input, but it seems that some of this classification is original research - not because it's illogical, but because I haven't actually seen it mentioned in the literature.    M   20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, BitTorrent is not decentralized. You cannot call a structure decentralized when it is unable to work without its central servers. It might be working on the basis of distributed efford of its users (uploading to others), but this doesn't make it fully decentralized. Also, this distiction between centralized, semi-decentralized and decentralized which you obviously don't like is more or less all what matters for P2P networks in recent time, as that's what decides about if they're going to survive or not, as everything that is only semi-decentralized or even centralized offers some very weak points where the whole system can be brought down by an attac easily. But if you especially don't like the term of semi-decentralized, then we will have to move BitTorrent to the centralized group (as well as eDonkey, SoulSeek and others), as it is not fully decentral in its nature.

Greetings, Old (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have placed winmx back in the decentralised networks catagory where it should be, it does not rely on any central server for its operations aside from an initial node gathering stage that lasts all of 10 seconds, most other networks call this operation by a different name but undertake a similar node discovery method, thus is they are decentralised so is winmx, its indexing, searching, chat room hosting and transfers are done soley by the networks users and thus there is no possible way this network can be called centralised without all networks being called the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.78.43 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer-to-peer filesharing

This template is about peer-to-peer file sharing only, not file sharing generally. Have created new article, will rename this template.--SasiSasi (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@SasiSasi: This template is still called "file sharing". If it's called "file sharing" it should be about file sharing and not peer-to-peer file sharing - so please either rename it or change the template's scope to file sharing in general. One might hold a vote on that or ask some other users via RfC / WikiProjects. --Fixuture (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixuture: Agreed. Came to suggest renaming or expanding scope. Could better mirror {{File sharing sidebar}} to serve as navbox alternative to having articles cramped with many sidebars. SasiSasi is banned for copyvio, care to take up this effort, Fixuture? -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)