Talk:Publius (publishing system)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Publius (publishing system) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Present tense / past tense[edit]
I believe that the Publius experiment ended some time ago, yet this page speaks in present tense. 152.17.63.183 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Useful sources for this article[edit]
I just posted a pile of valuable sourcing for this article in a (currently active) AFD discussion. I will copy-paste them here:
- New York Times Divided Data Can Elude the Censor[1]
- Scientific American Speech without accountability[2]
- Scientific American How Publius Thwarts Censors[3]
- Association for Computing Machinery Technical Report Fault-Tolerant Distributed Information Retrieval for Publius Servers and Mobile Peers[4]
- citeseerx.ist.psu.edu search returns 1001 hits for papers mentioning "Publius", most of which are valid hits, and many of those papers themselves are cited by hundreds of papers.[5]
- Annual Internet Law Institute, Volume 1[6]
- Many books, such as 'Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies [7]
- Google Book search for Publius+distributed+internet+peer returns 1810 hits.[8]
- The Publius home page[9] has (mostly dead) links to articles in The Industry Standard(9/13/2000), The Industry Standard (8/21/2000), eWeek, Yahoo News, Washington Post, CNET News 8/7/2000,CNET News 6/30/2000, Associated Press. Those count for Notability, and can be retrieved either in paper form or probably on Internet Archive sites.
Alsee (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Drastically trimmed[edit]
While looking through pages requiring updates, I came across this. A previous AfD was closed as keep in 2016 and there have been no significant attempts to address the sourcing problems identified there. More to the point, there has been no significant attempt to update this protocol since 2001 at the latest. Accordingly, I have drastically trimmed the technical description and added correct inline citations. Pinging AfD participants and editors with notable prior authorship (even if they have not edited in some time): @CapnZapp, Alsee, Fieari, Unscintillating, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Coachnever: Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- A -7,601 diff and a 1200% better article. Excellent work Eggishorn. Alsee (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The experiment terminated sometime in 2001 with no significant results.
Yup, that sounds about right. If I were the one stumbling over this article in its pre-pruned form, I would likely have condensed/summarized the pompous list of design goals as well. And the Overview. Basically, the lead is the only part we can call notable given the sources we have (that all date to the excitement phase before the project terminated with "no significant results"). But since I was the AfD nominator, I'll leave it for other editors to decide. Thank you, Eggishorn CapnZapp (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)- I have created AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publius (publishing system) (2nd nomination), please comment if you are interested.
- A -7,601 diff and a 1200% better article. Excellent work Eggishorn. Alsee (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)