Talk:Winny
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Additions are to be put at the bottom of this page! Please sign using ~~~~, so it is possible to see who wrote what when.
I didn't require any Probatio Diabolica, I required only another evidence for another fact. You had never put any evidence for another fact. None requires Probatio Diabolica of you . Lack of evidence means impression. Then, a fact merely being there is nonsence. Accepting 'He said' or 'There is' as the prefix concealing writer's real intention , he can put any bias on article. What but the site for donating to suspected person means profit-making? If you put it on the article, anyone can put any advertisement on any article because 'being there is fact'. If any information concerning about him were to appear, any privacy concerning crime fact of him should appear, since a suspected person is limited to no privacy of him concerning crime fact because the Supreme court permit them in a judicial precedent. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the donation isn't needed for NPOV of Winny article .
The word 'inaccurate' doesn't mean dissatisfaction of reader. If one think so, he should put 'accurate' fact based on accurate evidence on here. Any monkey can say word 'inaccurate', but only human can put evidence of other accuracy on here. Monkey's speculation doesn't mean evidence. Last post has many word 'inaccurate', but no evidence for accuracy is put there on.
Many of my previous propositions that the statements in the article was inaccurate contained claims that the statement was inaccurate because the statement was presented as fact where it could not be verified as a fact. As you stand by your statements, I presume your standpoint is that the statement can be verified. This is a classic case of a Probatio Diabolica ('Akuma no shoumei') - according to its principles, if you require proof, the burden of proof needs to be reversed, to be on your side. For instance, to counter my allegations that your statement that Kaneko's intents on the development of Winny was only to facilitate copyright infringement cannot be proven/disproven, you merely have to present a single explicit evidence that your statement can, indeed, be proven.
My claim that your statement that other Japanese P2P developers had never faced litigations contradicts with reality, in fact, did come with an evidence (the link). In this case, you were on the "did not" side and I was on the "did" side. As the burden of proof was on me, I searched out and presented an evidence. No speculation concerned there.
Concern on bias whatsoever has not been addressed in the reply. I await your opinions on the issue of neutrality in the wording and structure of the article.
Additionally, I have yet to receive a rational explanation for the deletion of the paragraph concerning Kaneko's defense fund. If there was a false statement in the paragraph, please state so.
Also, please append to Talk pages instead of replacing them.
Wingnut29530 17:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok ....
I have added a section to this article titled "Debate of Winny's Purpose" which contains the debate on Kaneko's intent on creating the software. I wrote it in a (I think is a) unbiased manner. Hopefully this is a good compromise and will prevent any further "content-wars". :-)
Xamian 13:14, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Fund-raising website
Sending money to non court-appointed lawyer is commercial. They are managing the site of 'donation' of meaning profit-making. Permitting such links means anyone can advertise his business or goods on Wikipedia. This means POV making money.
- Thank you for stating the reason for the removal of the paragraph, anon. As you mention it now, it seems reasonable enough. As for the other stuff, with Xamian's edit, the article now looks to me as neutral. Thanks. Wingnut29530 16:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- The information about raising the money is encyclopedic. This is not about advertising a business or goods... It should be in the article. If you have primary sources giving more information on the site, possibly stating that it is only about advertising a business or selling goods: please add! Guaka 17:25, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Sending money to non court-appointed lawyer is commercial. Donation bank account is in the name of the lawyers Kaneko engaged. http://www.freekaneko.com/ja/contribution.html (in Japanese) 'Donation' is paid for the lawyer as remuneration, this is business itself. Therefore, the site URL and 'Donation' achievements mean advertisement itself. While Kaneko is in the lawsuit, these can not be encyclopedic. These can be encyclopedic after the lawsuit.
- I have reverted back the information about the Free Kaneko site. I don't have any opinion if the man is or is not innocent, but it is factual information. As for the profit making argument, you can argue that putting a link on Wikipedia's Napster page to the Napster website is profit making as well and should be deleted as well. Ignoring this link seems to be ignoring facts.
- If this dispute continues, I would recommend we go through Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. It would help if the user(s) who which to debate the editing of this page would be available for contact so we can go through this process and resolve this dispute fairly.
- Xamian 21:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV mustn't include any profit-making link.
NHK is public broadcasting station known as its neutrality and fairness in Japan. NHK is fulfiling the NHK program standard. The standard contains following clause:
[the NHK program standard](in Japanese)
- Clause 12 Advertisement
- 1. We don't broadcast any business advertisement and self-advertising publicity.
- 2. When an organization name, a personal name or an occupation, a specific corporate name, or a specific brand name are contained in the broadcast, we determine fair whether we describe them specifically or not, investigating whether they are elementary for the broadcasting, and whether there is nothing for them but to describe specifically them in the direction.
I don't know there is the mass media having such a standard in U.S.A., but the neutral point of view should mean such a standard internationally. Therefore the 'donating' site is POV making money. Concerning the article of Napstar, there is nothing for the article but to describe specifically 'Napster'. But linking to the site of Napster isn't must.
Needless to say, an encyclopedia is more neutral than any mass media.
- I don't really get your point. There was and is no advertising publicity in the article. Gu@k@ 14:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Hiroyuki Nishimura's statement
The statement that Hiroyuki Nishimura stated that the nonexistence of 2ch's access logs makes attribution of 47's posts to Kaneko impossible should not have been deleted, as it is factual information and can be verified objectively.
"The nonexistence of 2ch's access logs makes attribution of 47's posts to Kaneko impossible".
This by itself is an unverifiable statement. This does not belong on Wikipedia.
This is because the question is on the nonexistence of 2ch's access logs and that its nonexistence makes the posts' attributions impossible.
Neither can be verified, therefore the above line does not belong on Wikipedia.
On the other hand:
"Hiroyuki Nishimura stated that the nonexistence of 2ch's access logs makes attribution of 47's posts to Kaneko impossible." This is not an unverifiable statement. This belongs on Wikipedia.
This is because the question is not on 2ch's logs or attribution - it has now become irrelevant. Now that this is a statement of a statement, the question is now on if Nishimura actually said this or not. This (whether Nishimura said this or not) can be verified through multiple means, including by referring to the link I included with the article, by asking Nishimura himself, or by asking the 139,052 subscribers of Nishimura's newsletter. According to Wikipedia norms I take this to be enough objective evidence for it to be considered true.
Wingnut29530 06:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I am curious as to how exactly Winny works? I would think this would be discussed in the anonymity section, but it only says that the mesage baord is not anonymous. However, I am more curious as to how the file-sharing aspect is anonymous. I know there's some encryption involved, but to connect to their computer, don't you still need the IP address which even if you couldn't see from the program itself, could be still easily logged through some other network software? Dracil 11:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Winny client (English version) dead link
The link points to http://www.winny-english.tk/ but that no longer exists. Does anyone have another link or shall it be removed? --24.194.57.197 22:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
seems to be re-registered by an unaffiliated party, should be removed?
[edit] Official website dead link
The official website link seems dead too, but I can't read Jap so I'm not sure
Using Google Translate: "そろそろノートだけでもいいから返してもらえないと仕事に支障がでるのですがどんなもんなんでしょうか・・・・" = "Notes from just about time I returned to work this kind of trouble are there. What does it look like?"
So yeah I'd say its dead 70.73.210.43 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removed claim
I removed the claim that the download software board was "filled with copyright infringers", as that information cannot be verified and is slightly inflammatory. also, the general jist of this comment is a lot more expanded upon below it, in the "Debate..." section.
[edit] Winny scares me
I've got a bandwidth meter & even when the winny cache is empty people still download *something* from me. Does anyone know what's happening there? Yaguchi 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] client vs. protocol
Is the protocol open? It should be, because there are open-source clones (Pyny). OTOH the article suggests that the exact workings of the anonymity feature are not public knowledge, so which is it?
What does a virus originating from Winny mean -- a virus spread through the Winny network or a virus using the Winny protocol to upload stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.8.31 (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
