Talk:Bitcasa

Article deletion
I get why the article has a mention for marketing language. I tried to help it along. I do not think the article is so bad it should be deleted..Synergee (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed a redundant flag just now. Notability is already being discussed. Other editors, what do you think? Synergee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The main concern is is Bitcasa notable enough to deserve an article per WP:CORP. So far it looks like it will survive the deletion nomination. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Technology section
Today I created a technology section with some of my research about Bitcasa's encryption. If anyone wants to help me on this, please do. Synergee (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work Synergee and I commend your collaborative spirit! I've changed the section names to more universal phrases. If you disagree you may change them and/or we can discuss here. Best -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 15:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

COI tag
I've removed the COI tag as there is no post on this talk page giving an explanation for it and who is supposed to be the alleged editor with a COI that we need to be aware of. Tags are supposed to alert editors to areas that need improvement and they are not meant to be temporary and not a badge of shame. Taking a look at the History of the pages edits I see the creator of the article has not been active much. So any explanation or info on this would be helpful. Thanks everyone and I look forward to working together! Peace. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 12:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The editor User:ZeusDDD is a single purpose account, so looking into their edits/profile ..they used to be called User:Bitcasa but changed username to "remove company name" (they would have to anyway as its a username violation WP:BADNAME). As the editor is not active, and the article is being/has been rewritten in the meantime, this is moot, but provided as asked for. Widefox ; talk 22:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification Widefox. We'll keep an eye out for any future issues with this editor. I think right now the article is well sourced and neutral. Thank you for your help in improving it! Best, -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 23:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Very cool! I am so impressed. Synergee (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Security
I've added a sub-section on Security - these issues are by no means unique to Bitcasa and I'm wondering if the topic merits a page of its own. There is much discussion, but relatively few solid & published sources related to the perceived "controversy" surrounding file access and ownership in relation to Cloud services - especially as it intersects with legal issues surrounding copyright crime. Any opinions? OzLind (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't get what that other person added, but your stuff is great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beerman76 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to the "security" subsection look too much like they've been written by the Bitcasa PR department - I think issues surrounding cloud storage and media files are highly relevant to bitcasa and should be included in this article rather than replaced with marketing-speak on how good and easy it is access a variety of files stored on Bitcasa. If left with recent edits to remove critical discussion and related references the article again becomes a candidate for deletion as pure marketing. OzLind (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi OzLind and thanks for your contributions to the article. I've made some cutbacks as much of the content you added was original research (seeWP:OR) which I have discussed in the thread below by that name. Sorry I didn't see this thread until today or I would have made my original research post here. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute
I don't understand what that IP address editor did to the page. The sources when you click on them are not what they say they are. I am going to remove them, but not sure what else to do there to fix it.

WIkipedia is not a marketing vehicle
This is a well written article for its' intended purpose, however that purpose is expressly forbidden by community rules (WP:CORP). 76.180.168.166 (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with your premise that WP is not for marketing but not sure how it applies to this article. Can you please cite specific text that you feel needs to be changed? Thanks.-- — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is a blatant attempt to publicize a completely unremarkable startup which the entity in question persists in pushing on Wikipedia, despite the record of the community above to enforce its' standards. As stated, for an attempt to push an advert into Wikipedia, it's well written, so I don't have a problem with specific text, just the whole article itself. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree on the article is reverting too close to a marketing document; critical/objective observations appear to have been gradually edited out and should be re-introduced & expanded; there is a large body of thought on the net holding these guys up to the light and that needs to be reflected in this encyclopedia entry. Don't agree on lack of notability because:
 * 1) Bitcasa are the first cloud storage provider to offer a truly unlimited service and the (technical/economic) compromises they have made to enable them to do this are - or at least will be - extremely important in the future evolution of cloud storage services.
 * 2) Their implementation of Convergent Encryption and the architecture of using the local drive as a cache with the main datastore in the cloud is technically very significant
 * OzLind (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ozlind, agree with the first &para;, though the use of "reverting" is unclear. Your first numbered point is also support for deletion of the article with it's "- or at least will be", and the second is redundant with the first. They're both, in as much as they're not real noteworthy technical accomplishments irrelevant to the main complaints people are making about the use of Wikipedia to market this thing. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears notable to me but any editor is welcome to start an AfD on the subject. Regarding the "critical/objective observations" do you have some sources in mind for this? Either currently in the article or on the web etc.?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 13:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a few copy edits in an attempt to make the tone of the article more neutral and I've cut back the "Mobile" section and tagged it as unsourced. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * PS this article was nominated for deletion in April 2013 and there was a no consensus for deletion. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has been obtained after the first try before now. If you have an interest in this company, this would be good time to say so. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with deleting this article on the basis of non-notability because of its notable implementation of convergent encryption in cloud storage. Doesn't excuse the marketing language but the marketing language does not negate its notability. My personal interest in this is actually far from promoting the company; I want them to come clean with exactly how they have implemented convergent encryption because of privacy/security concerns since - in my experience - convergent encryption has so far mainly existed behind firewalls on the inside of closed entities such as companies, departments, etc. and not as a "public" form of data security. OzLind (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant Keithbob. Wouldn't an article on that form of encryption be the proper place for that? 76.180.168.166 (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is this so personal for you? I see several editors agreeing the article is notable and I agree too. Looks like the marketing language has been toned down. I will work on more research. Just trying to help YosemiteDan (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Original research
I'm doing some clean up on the section called "Security" as it contains Original Research which is not permitted on WP. While the gathering of sources to support our own personal conclusions is encouraged in academia, it is not permitted on WP per WP:OR. Therefore I have removed the sentences that were supported by sources  that do not make any mention Bitcasa.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 14:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Questionable source
To me this TNW source is not reliable. In the article the author says: Furthermore, the author is characterized on the site as a blog writer, indicating that his articles are opinions and I see no indication that his blogs have editorial oversight.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I firmly believe that the files are indeed secure, but I’m also not an expert on the subject.
 * Again, I’m not an expert, but I believe that the same safety net applies here as it does to iTunes Match.

Linux client availability
The page incorrectly states that a Linux client is available (Ubuntu alpha version). The Bitcasa team stopped supporting (and in fact, stopped offering for download) the Linux client some time ago. Their current official stance is that a Linux client is in the works. While it is partially true that there exists a Linux client "in the wild", I believe the current state of the client should be clarified. The reason I would prefer not to make this change myself is because I believe my entry might have a slightly biased tone, given that I am quite irritated with the whole history concerning the Linux client.

A resource for this issue is the relevant thread in the Bitcasa support forums and the accompanying blog post.

--Achilleas.k (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Infinite Storage No More
As of today, it looks like Bitcasa intends to get rid of all their infinite storage users. Infinite accounts (even grandfathered ones) will be around until November 15, 2014. If users do not migrate to one of the limited plans before then, the account is deleted along with all the data. Send links also become non-functional after the date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.186.69 (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * GigaOM is reporting on this. I feel this blog is a reliable source, and that this is substantial enough of a change for the company to warrant inclusion in the paragraph on the company's changes. Lingnik (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bitcasa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203030002/http://blog.bitcasa.com/2013/11/19/our-new-pricing-and-the-evolution-of-bitcasa/ to http://blog.bitcasa.com/2013/11/19/our-new-pricing-and-the-evolution-of-bitcasa/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Did the founders go to jail?
Just wishful thinking for all of us who got screwed. --Minimat (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)