Talk:InterPlanetary File System

Tags

Why are these tags there without talk page discussion? Endercase (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Too technical? Internet for Dummies is what they're after?

The article went a long way since May 2016 (even if comparing to 2017) and, IMO, is simple and readable enough to remove the technical template. K4rolB (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Some news in 2017?

Examples

• http://www.bitcoinisle.com/2017/06/26/what-is-the-interplanetary-file-system/
• "(...) IPFS connects all these different blockchains ...", https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-meets-zcash-why-ipfs-plans-a-multi-blockchain-browser/

Latest addition for the Catalonian referendum

How about redacting this addition in a more neutral point of view? Something along the lines "IPFS was used before the October 1st Catalonian independence referendum, after the webpage for consulting census data was closed by the Spanish Government, in order to replicate the database, which lead to a security breach, etc."? I think it's better to focus on the technical subject rather than on the ideological subject, which has already its good deal of problems, hatred, etc. Let's not add more fuel to the already perfectly burning fire, because otherwise this addition is going to be used as an editing war by both sides, which will lead to vandalism, etc. Let's focus on the technical issue at hand, I think.

I won't do any editing myself, let's comment this and discuss this before, if the editors involved agree. DervishD (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree; in the spirit of WP:BOLD I did some editing of this section. Rather than "censorship", I opted for the word "blocking". Also instead of the original external links (EFF.org, Hacker News and a personal blog), I added two news stories which should satisfy WP:Reliable sources.

I think the part about "security breach" doesn't belong in this article: it's not an inherent issue of IPFS as far as I can see and it's not covered by any news sources that I could find. -- intgr [talk] 13:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right, the "security breach" doesn't belong here because as you mentioned it's not an inherent issue of IPFS, but of the particularly weak crypto used on the database. The redaction looks much more appropriate for Wikipedia now. Thanks for editing. DervishD (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

browser support from 2018?

Removed this text, as I can't find evidence this actually happened:

Web browsers like Firefox, Brave, and Opera are also taking steps to add built-in support for IPFS.

The cite was to Leonard, John. "Firefox 59 will support decentralised internet protocols". The Inquirer. Retrieved 27 August 2019.

This is future-looking, and no future-looking claim for anything within a mile of crypto is worth citing. So it's a year later, Firefox 59 is long past, and I can't find evidence that this ever eventuated. Is there any? - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right, no native support in Firefox: "Support for the IPFS protocol". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help), or Brave: "IPFS Integration - Roadmap and discussion". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help) Both require ipfs companion plugin and desktop app. "IPFS Integration in Web Browsers Working Group". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help) — K4rolB (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing future-looking about it. As of Firefox 59, FireFox recognizes IPFS, DAT, and other p2p protocols as valid protocols. That is, it can handle ipfs://, dat:// just like it can handle ftp://, file://, :mailto, etc. Read the blog post here: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2018/01/26/extensions-firefox-59/. The information should be reinstated. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

says "approved for use by extensions", not "supports" - claiming FF "supports" IPFS when it doesn't work without a third-party extension is puffery at best - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying FireFox supports IPFS - Mozilla is. In the official documentation, they say they have "Full Support" for IPFS as a protocol handler which is exactly what the article claims was added in FireFox 59. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

that looks very like they added the text string "ipfs" to a whitelist, as a thing you could write a handler for. This is really not noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" as per WP:NNC. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It does when there's nothing significant about it, and you're casting about for any puffery on IPFS you can find. "Additionally, Firefox whitelisted a string" really doesn't rate mention - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not for you to decide. A reliable source thought it was notable enough to write an entire article about. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• How do we get from Mike Conca saying "Firefox itself does not implement these protocols" to "Mozilla wrote an entire article about it"? Uncle G (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The inquirer wrote the article, not Mozilla. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotected

I have semiprotected this article due to what looks on the face of it very much like spamming. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The whitewashing comment was related to the merge of the malware section with the notable users section as per WP:UNDUE. David Gerard (correction: roxy the dog) has taken this opportunity to revert all edits I made to the article including basic things like adding additional sources. Please review the changes. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Disputable sentence in article

There's a small edit war going on around this sentence: In 2019 the project has been criticized for being "still not usable for websites" in spite of attracting huge investments and creating an "overextended, under-documented, and unfinished constellation of projects". The source is MacWright, Tom. "IPFS, Again". macwright.org. Retrieved 2019-06-13., which to me looks like an ordinary blog post and should not be used as a reference. Although, there was at least one voice (@Roxy the dog:) that removing it might be whitewashing. I would happily remove this sentence, what are other opinions? — K4rolB (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

My whitewashing comment related to the whole series of edits made by what appears to be an interested party. It was a response to the whole series. If consensus is that that source is unreliable then so be it, but my comment, whitewash, stands. Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• The editor who restored the edit has an undisclosed connection to the subject. He promoted the article on his personal Twitter account. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

If you continue making baseless accusations of conflict of interest, you will be blocked. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

12 June 2019: Gerard promotes blog post on Twitter. 16 July 2019: Gerard restores same blog post to article without a disclosure. That's not baseless - those are facts. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Take it to WP:COIN. Oh wait, you did and it was rejected, because that doesn't in any way constitute a conflict of interest - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest, which you would know if you read WP:COIN. Regardless, this edit breaks plenty of other rules. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines - the source, content, and tone of the quote in question are all in violation of guidelines. "In 2019 the project has been criticized for being "still not usable for websites" in spite of attracting huge investments and creating an "overextended, under-documented, and unfinished constellation of projects"" is from an unreliable source (the author's personal blog), and gives undue weight to a single perspective that is not representative of a majority or large minority opinion (as demonstrated in a basic google search where many individuals describe using it successfully for websites). In addition, the content itself has a biased tone and implies that one individual's experience is a factual assessment of the project's current state. Do folks agree with that assessment? - Thanks! Nala28 (talk) 6:16, 2 Sept 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I would also add the fact that the style of citation is far from perfect, bc it is cited word by word while it's not necessary, unless you want to it sound extra harsh—"unfinished constellation of projects" is far from neutral language. — K4rolB (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked through the recent edits in the article and I get the impression that David Gerard has an axe to grind with IPFS. His edits have only added negative material, but Wikipedia editors should make some attempt to keep their edits in balance. Now pretty much half the article is criticism. I'm not very familiar with the subject but that seems WP:UNDUE. Anyway, this one paragraph based on an unreliable blog post can be removed. -- intgr [talk] 07:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a long-standing problem with advocacy editing around cryptobollocks. David Gerard is one of the small number of reality-based editors maintaining our standards there. So it's very likely you'll see his name prominently featured in any article that's a target for cryptobollocks promoters. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

'"reality-based" editors. Do you mean RationalWiki editors? It sounds like you are supporting Gerard because you share his biases. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Cloudflare IPFS gateway removed as notable user?

I notice that in this diff, the Cloudflare IPFS gateway was removed as a notable user of IPFS with the rhetoric "if only the primary source says it, it's not noteworthy". However, the launch of the Cloudflare IPFS gateway has been reported on in a number of articles from other sources including ZDNet - "Cloudflare IPFS Gateway boosts decentralized website development" and Yahoo! Finance - "Web Server Security Firm Cloudflare Announces Launch of Ethereum Gateway". Given that, can we reinstate the bullet below (optionally referencing one of these additional sources)? Thanks for your help! - Nala28 (talk) 6:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

* In September 2018, Cloudflare launched an IPFS gateway, as well as an IPFS-backed version of their services. The gateway permits https read access to most types of files located within IPFS (but e.g. not to streaming video files).

The Yahoo! source is a reprint of CoinTelegraph, i.e. a crypto source - David Gerard (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

While I agree CoinTelegraph might be considered to be an opinionated source - the content seems factual/unbiased. Other examples of notable sources that have reported on this usage include MIT Technology Review, siliconANGLE and Forbes - so I think we can agree that the previous logic doesn't hold. Can you please undo the deletion? In general, notability doesn't apply inside articles - so while we should look for reliable references to any edit, notability should be relative to the subject at hand (aka common uses of this project) - not global notability guidelines. - Nala28 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Forbes contributor blogs are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I already demonstrated the contradiction and have since referenced 2 additional sources you don't have a problem with - in addition to the Cloudflare blog as an authoritative source on itself. This should be more than enough to undo the deletion - do you agree? - Nala28 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I had previously restored the edit in this diff [1] adding in a couple secondary sources. Unfortunately, this was washed away in the massive revert from roxy the dog. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency ???

Why is this article categorized as "Cryptocurrency?" It's a distributed filesystem, or alternatively, a file distribution system which uses cryptographic algorithms for content-addressing storage or filesystem encryption. In the same way that all modern internet protocols like HTTPS, SSH, etc are not cryptocurrencies, it is not a cryptocurrency. The categorization and edit lock is bizarre. - KMeyer (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

it's ... not? If you mean "wikiproject", that covers all blockchainy things - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is currently marked as "Cryptocurrency:"

• On this very talk page: "{{WikiProject Cryptocurrency|class=Start |importance=Low}}."
• On the article page: "{{Cryptocurrencies|state=collapsed}}."

If the category "Cryptocurrencies" is actually "All blockchainy things," perhaps it should have a name that reflects what it is?

On the other hand, how is IPFS a blockchainy thing? As far as I can tell, bitcoin and other altcoin spammers just went around trying to spoof their coins on as many articles as possible and some editor(s) made the mistake of converting that into a category annotation before the spam was removed. Here's a timeline of events:

• 3 April 2018, a registered spammer (User:JasonCarswell) adds a ton of random links to the page with absolutely no justification, including "[[Category:BitTorrent]]."
• 7 April 2018, an unregistered spammer adds their self-promoted altcoin to the page.
• 18 July 2018, you convert User:JasonCarswell's inexplicably not-yet-reverted "[[Category:BitTorrent]]" into "[[Category:Cryptocurrencies]]."
• 26 September 2018, User:Audacity adds the "{{Cryptocurrencies}}" tag, perhaps based on confusion about the the self-promoted altcoin thing or the link to the category page you added.
• Immediately subsequent to Audacity's edit, on 26 September 2018, you remove the altcoin spam, but not the bogus category tag.
• 11 January 2019, User:Balkywrest finally removes the "[[Category:Cryptocurrencies]]" derived from User:JasonCarswell's drive-by spam in April 2018, and only the bogus "{{Cryptocurrencies}}" tag is left.

I think the categorization is a mistake and the correct thing to do here is to remove the category tag. As far as I am aware, nothing about IPFS is implemented on or using a blockchain. It's just a P2P content-addressed data store. (If you want to call any distributed content-addressed storage system a blockchain, you might as well categorize Git as one. Good luck.)

- KMeyer (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

References

References