Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of online backup services

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hm2k (talk | contribs) at 21:53, 14 July 2010 (→Data privacy: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Stand-alone list issue

On this page is a comparison grid. For this comparison grid to be useful to readers, I propose that it be allowed to be comprehensive. That means it might list "less notable" backup providers. First, it is a matter of opinion who the most notable providers are. And besides, less notable providers often offer unique distinguishing features in order to try and compete with the big guys. Not all of these second tier providers really need (or even merit) a specific Wikipedia page. Which means linking directly to their website as the source of information. For a comparison grid, the vendor website is in fact the authoritative reference or source for information. BryceN (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, providers will as a mater of practice come to this page and add their own services. I think it impractical to police that, and harmful to do so. While there have been many removals of providers from this list in the past, I propose removals stop. Your thoughts? BryceN (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Hm2k (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the material I have added is properly sourced, as noted above. I will open a dispute, as this discussion is going in loops. BryceN (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note as a test, I created both a grid entry and a Wikipedia page for a minor vendor. This grid entry was not deleted. My source was the same for the disputed entries and this entry: the vendor website. I invite additional voices to this debate. BryceN (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the addition of entries that do not have Wikipedia articles. For a precedent, look at List of search engines, which includes only search engines that have their own articles. On its Talk page it has the banner {{stand-alone list}}, which has the message Please only add subjects that have a Wikipedia article or evidence of notability. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as well. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we have no duty to report on every single service in existance without regard for its notability (in the broad sense and also the Wikipedia meaning. In addition, independant sources are most preferred, and are required for having a standalone article. I think having a bluelink-only list will give a strict criteria for what belongs here and won't give any wiggle room for the development of listcruft. ThemFromSpace 01:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only Oppose entries that do not have a Wikipedia article. However, I would commend you for creating Wikipedia articles for any entities you want to put on this list, and then putting them on the list. I checked the articles for many of these providers and they were scant but sufficient for me, and I also agree that in time users of the providers will contribute to even small articles. I would hope that the list looks exactly as you want it someday, but the articles should come first. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose via WP:NOTABILITY && WP:NOT Bobwrits (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources at all for SugarSync?

Per this edit, an IP claims that SugarSync is very notable! Many articles have reported about that. It's one of the best services. Unless *actual* sources are forthcoming, I recommend that SugarSync be again removed from this list. SugarSync is at present the only red-linked entry in the table. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there's actually a lot of sources for this service, including an article from the New York Times, which I'll probably use to support notability. If users adding content can find notability in the same way it will save further complications. --Hm2k (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Hm2k has removed a half dozen services from this list, claiming they are not notable. What criteria can we use for notability, other than Hm2k's opinion? Existence of a wikipedia article on the company should (I feel) not be sufficient to merit notability -- especially since an editor can simply create a Wikipedia article, thus self-referentially creating "notability". I feel that unique features are a form of notability. BryceN (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with my opinion it's to do with Wikipedia's guidelines. Your failure to read what I have clearly given you about the guidelines is getting tiresome. For something to be notable, it must either have an article on wikipedia or a reference to a reliable source as I have done for SugarSync as you can clearly see above and on the article itself. Also note that Wikipedia articles can only exist if they are have reliable sources for notability, thus Wikipedia articles are sufficient notability. --Hm2k (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If SugarSync is notable, write an article about it. That can be the only clear and indisputable criteria for this list. Without an article, it does not belong. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. Write the article. --Hm2k (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither the desire nor the inclination to create an article about a company that I have no knowledge of. My point is simply that until it is the subject of an article, it doesn't have the proven notability required for inclusion. This is a very easy way to weed out non-notable entries from the list. What other criteria is more idiot proof than this? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even an idiot can see that it has a reliable source as a reference to prove notability... --Hm2k (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not rational, by Wikipedia standards, that an indisputable way to ensure notability is to have an article on a subject? Since the first line in this list is "This is a list of notable online backup services..." doesn't it stand to reason that this statement means that the listed services are notable by Wikipedia standards? Why is there some sense of urgency to include this item in the list just for the sake of having another service listed that doesn't link to an informative article on the subject? Why not wait until there is an article on the subject to include it? Including this item, supported by marginal coverage in a reliable source (isn't it really just a review), opens the door for argument for including any other service that has ever had a mention in a newspaper. How does this increase the value of the list? This is not notability by Wikipedia standards. Let's wait for an article supported by multiple, non-trivial, third party reliable sources. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what your opinion is. Wikipedia policy states create red links to articles you intend to create. --Hm2k (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I used the statement "in my opinion" anywhere here. And by your tone I can see you have no intention of making a reasoned, rational argument. If your argument ends at "because it says I can" without regard for context then I guess we cannot form consensus on the issue without WP:RFC or WP:DR. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus needs to be drawn, the policy is very clear on this matter. --Hm2k (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that we are at an impasse and need third party input. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the exclusion of SugarSync on the basis of stand-alone list argument

As an uninvolved editor on the SugarSync issue, in my third opinion: It is unclear why "SugarSync" cannot feature in this list. After all it is currently a list of services, which makes the debate redundant whether this particular service is notable or not. At the moment there is a strong inconsistency between the content and title of this article. Editors should consider to rename the article to List_of_notable_online_backup_services. However, it remains questionable what exactly a notable online backup services is (and whether such a distinction is meaningful in the first place for a list). For instance, www.sugarsync.com appears to be notable through its website presence. Mootros (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-alone lists are lists of notable items because they "consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists in a particular subject area". As the banner at the top of this page clearly states "This is a stand-alone list. Please only add subjects that have a Wikipedia article or evidence of notability." The statement at the top of the article reaffirms that "This is a list of notable online backup services". If we did not use the basic Wikipedia notability criteria, existence of an article, we would end up with an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that appears be exactly the issue here. A banner on the top does not make it automatically true and therefore notable! Looking at the articles that feature in this list, I find it difficult to see how these services are particularly "notable" in the public domain. All they have is a website and the occasional mentioning in some "PC magazines". (confer: google or amazon) An own article in wikipedia does not automatically mean that the subject is of good notability. A normal list exactly servers the purpose of collecting information, without ending up with an indiscriminate array of data. Mootros (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do have an imperfect system, but one can reasonably state by Wikipedia standards that if a subject has an article, then the community has deemed it notable if the article does not get deleted. The banners do not confer notability, they state that items should be notable prior to being added to the list. My concern is that if we have a list of redlinks, we are not providing value to the reader. If it's supposed to be a list of notable items, they should meet a minimum notability litmus test, being the subject of an article. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that an entry in Wikipedia means that community has deemed it notable. However, there is a problem with this argument: that is if there NO Wikipedia article (yet) that the subject is NOT notable. If that is your whole reason for inclusion in a stand-alone list, you appear to operate on rather thin grounds -- moving towards a self-referential encyclopedia. I suggest to think again and state how on this particular instance, the featured services in the list are different --outside wikipedia-- to the proposed entry of SugarSync. Mootros (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, it is a matter of consistency. If all the items link to articles, you presumably can get a concise, objective summary of what each item is. You're not clicking on some internal links and some external links to potentially biased web sites. I am clearly not alone in my view of this as you can see from the oppose comments in the section above on this same topic. There is clear precedent for this. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of precedences, editors need to think what the value of this list should be. I say, would the value of a list of such services not be exactly providing a comprehensive overview of what is out there. If there is further (in-depth) information through own entry ever better. On this specific instance, not to go for such an overview format may raise the question whether some editors have a vested interest to exclude some list entries over others. Mootros (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the previous discussions and precedent, I think any consensus we came to here would not stand up to a wider challenge. For example, if I suggested that the word "notable" be removed from the lead, I suspect that would be challenged when other interested parties stumble on it. In order to form durable consensus, perhaps this needs to be opened to wider input. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Good Idea. I also summaries one of the key issues in a new section. Mootros (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A WP search for Sugarsync comes up with 3 uses as of this date. the product is discussed in the article on the company marketing it. When i am curious about writing an article on a new subject, i routinely search for the term here on WP, and find each use that is related to my understanding of it, then i redlink them with edit summary "redlink for future article". i then make a note to myself to one day write the article. if i dont find any use on WP of the term except in lists, i would remove the term from any stand alone lists. if i find lots of uses here, then its a surefire article that hasnt been written yet, and i would leave it in a stand alone list with some info on notabiility, if nothing else a piped link to an article than mentions it. for sugarsync, im inclined to include it in the table, with a piped link to the company, but i would also try to improve that article. What i like is when i see only a few redlinks, where there is some effort to show notability so i can go "oh, yes, that deserves an article, i hope someone will write it soon" rather than "what the hell is this? is this just promotional, or was it added by someone who doesnt understand notability?" too many redlinks could mean its an indiscriminate list. of course, sheer numbers arent the only guide, but its a good indicator that a list needs attention. and i prefer to not use the word "notable" as thats too often just shorthand for WP inclusion guidelines, and we dont want self reference. more of a style point to me. the word does of course fit.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "Stand-alone_list" for this article

The community has currently agreed to use Stand alone lists to link wikipedia "articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists in a particular subject area, such as a timeline of events or people and places". The above discussions now raise the point whether online backup services does constitute a "subject area" (such as a timeline of events or people and places). Also the section on list of people make it clear that a criteria of notability should be used for inclusion. So if this would be applied to this list as a "list of things", it raises the question what is a notable online backup services. Mootros (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on notability required for inclusion in this list article

A dispute exists as to the notability requirements for inclusion of services in this list article. Is a mention in a reliable source sufficient, or should the existence of a Wikipedia article be the requirement? See above sections for discussion and history. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still wondering as to why one specific service was not allowed to feature in this stand a lone list? Is this a form extreme exclusionism? What I had ask in this above thread, what would be the purpose of such a list and I thought to give a good overview. To be an index and if more information in for of linked articles the better it would be. Merely to exclude because there is not (yet) an article is not reasonable for a list. After all NOT have a wikipedia article is NOT an indication of NOT being notable. If this is supposed to be a list about existing articles it should be reflected the name as I suggest above. Mootros (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have an online backup service. It is called Mufka's Backup Service. Can I be listed? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Compare the two: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=a&rls=b%3Ad%3Aunofficial&q=Mufka%27s+Backup+Service&aq=f&oq=&aqi= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=a&rls=b%3Ad%3Aunofficial&q=SugarSync&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Mootros (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In two weeks I guarantee I can have a search result. Will I be notable then? I don't think I would be. We have established criteria for notability on Wikipedia. Rather than getting into a notability argument for every service that might be added to the list, why not fall back on the existing system for establishing notability. A service can't have an article unless it is notable. If it has an article, we don't even have to have a discussion. If an article is written about a service that might be borderline, we have systems for getting community consensus on notability. Why drag those discussions out of where they belong and into this forum? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess, you could have an entry once you get your service up running properly. (I don't know how long it takes to become notable with this kind of service and whether this can be done in two weeks.) The problem with your argument is that you take wikipedia as the yard stick for the (outside) world, rather than the world as the yard stick for wikipedia. Wikipedia is trying to be about the world and the people and things encountered there. When the community decides whether an article can enter wikipedia, it tries to estimate whether people outside wikipedia in general think so and not whether inside this forum somebody thinks so in isolation to outside. In other words, a reference to a good article is nothing else but a reference to the outside world. That's why we value references. One thing for sure, if a proper article exists, notability can mostly be assumed as you rightly suggest. Yet, it cannot be the other way around, if there is no entry, you cannot assume there is no notability. Ironically, the entry in question, has about 10 times more hits on google than some other entries in the list that I probed. So once you get your service up and running and write a nice article about it, it would be in... On a serious note, my point is: because someone has not bothered to write a fully-fledged article, but makes a start to add it to a list, I cannot see how the quality of this encyclopedia is endangered. On the contrary, I believe the currently practised exclusion of this one service on the grounds of not having an wikipedia entry is a form of extreme exlusionism. It jeopardises the very point of a list to give an overview, neither ending up with an array of stubs, or with nothing. Not following this practice, would allow a high degree of quality while still being rather inclusive: a moderate position. Mootros (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think you are misinformed about what governs what is notable in the context of Wikipedia. Notability is a purely Wikipedia judgment and it is determined by the community and codified in Wikipedia policy. It seems that the concept of using the existence of an article as criteria for a list is new to you. This is very widely used. We are not making lists of things that are of note to the world. We are making lists of things that are notable by Wikipedia's definition. Making a list of "things" whose existence is justified only by some link to an external web site, diminishes the value of Wikipedia in general because we're sending viewers soemwhere else to view content rather than satisfying them internally. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you seem to miss the point. Yes, its is fine to have lists about articles.
If notability is purely a wikipedia judgement, what would this judgement be base upon? An alarming interpretation, bordering on this self-referntiality, you are suggesting. Indeed, wikipedia is not a collection of links, it is based on the citation of sources. Citations you may have noticed are outwards and not inwards. Citations are in relation to the world and the objects/ concepts found there. You appear to defend a rather extreme position. Mootros (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The judgment of notability is itself made on the bases of cited sources; using it as a criterion is an easy shortcut for testing whether an entry is significant. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. So a list entry with (lets say two, three) citations, but no article (yet) should be allowed on the list. Isn't what are you saying? Mootros (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the article, I see no major issues (besides the one list not being integrated into the table). What necessitated the RfC in the first place? Should it remain open? --Cybercobra (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a quick look, there is a note inside on top of the article's source stating that only entries with an existing wikipedia article are permitted to feature in this list. The RFC was made as an entry in the list was persistently removed: deemed not "notable" enough (as there no own wikipedia article yet) despite citation in the New York Times ([1] e.g.) . An absurd situation. Mootros (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds rather arbitrary to me. In fact, one suspects some form of double standard, where "lists" supposedly have a differenent standard than articles themselve. Or will we hear next that the requirement for an arctile in wikipedia is another article in wikipedia?
I begin to wonder whether some editors, here, have a vested interest to exclude some entries over others. Mootros (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's generally an interest in Wikipedia not being used as advertising. Other than that, you can't be sure of much else, so diverse is Wikipedia's editorship. Notability is a consistent, objective standard. Other lists may use looser criteria because they're less prone to abuse or cruft accumulation. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there still is some dispute as to what criteria should be used for inclusion in this article. Discussion needs to continue so that edit warring does not continue. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on list article to be a "standalone list"

The above discussions raise the point whether "online backup services" does constitute a "subject area" (such as a timeline of events or people and places) and therefore permits the use of strict "standalone list" criteria in the first place. Mootros (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list very clearly falls under the guideline for stand-alone lists. It is a list linking to articles in a particular subject area. The subject area is online backup services. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please explain how you came to the conclusion that List of online backup services does not qualify as a stand alone list? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Online backup services" does NOT constitute


The criteria on this page Wikipedia:Stand-alone_list is rather explicit. You may say "computing" or "computers" are subject areas. There might even be a case for a subject called "backup" or "services", I suppose. Yet, "online backup services" I would say is not a subject. It is something specific. I think the spirit in terms of the broadness in the section on stand-alone list says it all: "timeline of events or people and places". You may add there "groups of technical artefacts or concepts" OBS doe not meet this IMHO. Mootros (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are merely saying that this is a stand-alone list that merely links existing articles on OBS within wikipedia, than this list must be renamed to List_of_notable_online_backup_services, because this list is clearly not about OBS but only "notable ones" (what ever this means) as seen above Mootros (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is a very strange reading of the stand alone list guideline. If we were to go by your interpretation, examples listed on the guideline itself such as List of social networking websites would not be 'lists'. More clearly: online backup services is a list subject, and there is no need to insert the word notable in the title. - MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who said this list was as a stand alone list? Did I miss something? If you read the section on general formatting where it mentions List of social networking websites:
I would say, it is an example of formatting and NOT of what constitutes a list stand-alone-list. Mootros (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite puzzled by your interpretation of the guideline. I guess the best way to approach it is by asking why is it not a subject area? Additionally, I think you are putting too much emphasis on the weight of the "such as" criteria. This is just an example, not a restriction. Perhaps you could give an example of a good stand-alone list for comparison. Also, please consider using the preview button while you are deciding on what to write. It helps reduce edit conflicts and keeps me from having to change my response for every new addition you make during the time I'm writing. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the version conflict from my side! Good examples are (for subjects area): Lists_of_philosophers or Deaths_in_2007 Also very good example (not being a subject) is List_of_mathematics_articles_(0-9). If you would say everything and anything could be a stand-alond list, what would the different from a normal list? I think the guideline are not well defined. Mootros (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So the guideline has gone from "rather explicit" to "not well defined". I think we're making progress. So what makes philosophers different from online backup services? What if we were talking about computer manufacturers, internet service providers, or childrens' book publishers. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Step by step. I apologizes, the guideline are not well defined in the relation to normal lists and its very purpose of lstand-alone lists. The difference was supposed to be one is general and the other is specific. If you read the section on people it clearly states notability---back to square one! So, you could have a List_of_articles_about_online_backup_services. May I ask you again, what is the difference between a normal and a stand-alone list? Mootros (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What your asking is the difference between embedded lists and stand-alone lists. Those are the only two types of lists there are. Embedded lists are a part of a larger article. Stand alone lists are articles that just contain a list. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying this. In this case it is clearly a case of an embeded list as this list is merley an extension of this article online_backup_services Mootros (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute! You have entirely misunderstood. This is a stand-alone list. An embedded list would be a list of online backup services contained in an article about online backup. This article is only a list. There is no content other than the list. Just because it is in a fancy table doesn't make it not a list. And stop adding and removing the tag. Until we agree on what it means, this discussion is still ongoing. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So it is really a question about notability. Sorry about the confusion. Mootros (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for thinking that you are being coy. But that comment just doesn't match any of my statements on this subject. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. But I would like to retract my RFC on the list issue. I think, I was not clear about the two types of lists. You rightly suggested at the very first instance when I placed this RFC that there must be a confusion. I would like to retract, as it would takes us away from the serious issues discussed above in the first RFC. What else would it be if not a list? Mootros (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the list of Online Backup Services of potential benefit to the global Community? Yes. Is notability important? Yes. If an item is contested tag it for citation rather than deleting it. We are not limited by storage capacity on Wikimedia projects, remember.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated Exclusionism

I strongly disagree with this note.

As explained before, NOT having a wikipedia article is NOT an indication of NOT being notable. In the discussions above, I explained that notability within wikipedia is normally determined by citations.

user:Cybercobra seemed to agree, in the discussion and as a matter of fact asked what the point was of the RfC in the first place. Nobody has argued anything to the contrary following my discussion with Cybercobra. Nobody has reacted to user:B9 hummingbird hovering's comment argument for inclusion. I assume consensus and will remove the offending note. Mootros (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability must be established somehow, requiring a wikipedia article is as good a metric as any. As for B9 hummingbird hovering's comment, well, that would be the product of improper canvassing, wouldn't it? Your summary here seems to disagree with this quote from Cybercobra up the page: 'Entries should have Wikipedia articles. It's a frequently-used, non-arbitrary, and quite reasonable way of deciding inclusion.' - MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing? Two friendly notes, neutrally worded and open... [1] [2] to two different people. (B9 hummingbird hovering, specifically expressed to be contacted on wikiversity User_talk:B9_hummingbird_hovering.)
With regard to your quote of Cybercobra, more than 12hours later Cybercobra stated the following, after I explained that citation should be enough:
At the moment, I looks like we have to start a mediation process. Would you like to go for it? Mootros (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps before we start this, would anybody have to have a look through here again Wikipedia:N. I think, it says here inclusion in other Wikipedia articles does not establish notability. Mootros (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, please do not assume consensus when consensus clearly does not exist. Second, I think you are misrepresenting Cybercobra's comments. He can certainly chime in to clarify, but his statement that there were no major issues with the article was clearly in reference to its then current state (which did not include any entries without articles). He later states that "entries should have Wikipedia articles." This seems very clear to me. Your statement from WP:N that "inclusion in other Wikipedia articles does not establish notability" is a misinterpretation too. That means that the fact that something is mentioned in an article does not make it notable. Being the subject of an article, which is what we're talking about, absolutely establishes notability. This RFC has two more weeks on it. Let's be patient. More input may be forthcoming. There is no hurry. And yes, your canvassing was inappropriate. The statement "moving towards extreme exclusionism" is clearly biased and targeting an inclusionist, out of the blue, who has never edited this topic is clearly inappropriate. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted your valuable comment on patients. Thanks. With regard to the acusation of canvassing, I like to point out are quoting me rather selectively. I said:


N.b. I am not saying it does.. I appears to me. Moreover, within the very same sentence continue by merely stating facts of previous discussions, asking others for input on the matter. It worth noting that this discussion is not about a specific online backup service to be included or not, it is about wider issues of self-referentially and proper citations.


Please, lets try to remain level-headed over this and see what we can do together. Mootros (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per talkpage request for clarification of my opinion: In order to keep the list from becoming spammy, some sort of metric is needed, notability would seem to be the appropriate one. To prove notability, per WP:N, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is required. This can either be established by putting citations next to the entry in the list of by the entry having a Wikipedia article (where it is presumed notability is demonstrated thereon by the same sort of citations; if not, the article can be taken to AfD). In essence: entries should be notable, and the presence of a Wikipedia article is a useful shortcut to checking that, but it is not itself the metric. That said, if an entry in the list is truly notable, why shouldn't it have its own article? It would not be unreasonable to ask someone to make a stub before adding an entry to the list. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cybercobra. The notability guidelines are an adequate way of making sure this list only covers important services. I'm sure exeptions can be made for individual entries that don't have articles, but opening the flood gates to allow any such service a place on the chart will lead to an unhelpful table with undue weight placed on certain entries. ThemFromSpace 05:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely the notability guidelines are adequate, as they demand proper citation and the rest. They do NOT demand existing wikipedia entries to be included in a list in wikipedia. Mootros (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed the article's editor note to the following:
If this is not acceptable to others let us now please proceed to mediation. Thank you for everybody's effort. Mootros (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

integrity checking?

I bet some or all of the listed backup services do no integrity checking of the transferred data whatsoever. Silent data corruption is a HUGE problem, and that doesn't include all the opportunities for corruption in transferred data:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=191

Somebody please look into this. If they aren't doing integrity checking, and preferably repair (using methods similar to quickpar), then the data could be junk and no one would know it.

I did find that Wuala uses "erasure codes" and "reed solomon codes", which is similar to quickpar, so maybe wuala is one that does do integrity checking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xKZ4KGkQY8

Qwasty (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise! Jungle disk will do everything but backup files larger than 5GB. If you do video editing, or anything else that involves large files, you can't use many of these backup services.
Qwasty (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signification of columns

What is the signification of L, U, M columns ? A description should be written

Most important information missing!

The most important information is missing: Price, total storage limit and file size limit for individual files. Also the table is mostly incomplete in the other sections. --84.178.103.86 (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add www.rsync.net?

There service seems to have a couple neat features --91.47.184.13 (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. --Hm2k (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about LiveDrive? I heard about it, but would like to see how it compares to these others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.144.246 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tarsnap

Would someone mind including tarsnap service, [3]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.68.232 (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just create the article first.
Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.
--Hm2k (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Data privacy

The meaning of column titled Encryption has diluted. Earlier denoted as ref K and explained as encryption against all parties other than the user itself (including provider) does not stand. When the data is truly private, provider cannot know what is stored and if the user's key is lost, cannot recover the data. Encryption during transfer and while stored helps against third parties but does not guarantee privacy as the provider can unlock the data whenever it wants if they have the key. I suggest a column for privacy although I do not have time to populate it with data. Easiest way to find that out might be to ask the provider if they are able to recover the data when the key is lost. Tazpa (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree: There is NO distinction as to whether data is private or not. This is an important bit of info missing from this comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.37.10 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Encryption should be defined as whether the data stored encrypted or not. Whether or not it uses a secure transfer protocol (such as SSL) is an entirely different matter. The two cannot and should not be confused or combined. I think in most cases it can be assumed that some kind of TLS is used so that is probably not note worthy. --Hm2k (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/technology/personaltech/27pogue.html?_r=1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_online_backup_services&oldid=373517439"