Talk:GlobaLeaks

Inclusion criteria
The list of implementations appears to be becoming a WP:LINKFARM. What is the standard for inclusion. I see several cite sources, some of which are primary, and others just provide direct links. Is anyone testing the onion links to ensure they actually point where they purport? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this (a common approach on Wikipedia): To include something in a list of examples, either (a) it must have its own Wikipedia article, or (b) it must be accompanied by reliable sources that say it uses GlobaLeaks. As an addendum to the latter, any .onion address must also be sourced. Linking to Tor sites is tricky business, as there is no authoritative registry, etc. as there are with other websites such that a dangerous site can more easily pretend to be another. I'll wait to make any changes to see if there are objections or other ideas. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  20:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

...wow, everyone loves this, no one is opposed... must be great.
This article is completely devoid of any mention of opposition, or even any suggestion of potential problems or abuses. . The article mentions Assange, in a fairly positive light, as if that represents a model user.....but shouldn't that bother certain large organizations? As an example, the US government doesn't seem too pleased with the likes of Assange or Snowden..... surely the US government must oppose this type of thing..... . Wait, what's that? Not only is the US government no coming out in opposition to this system, .....the US government has provided the funding? . Oh.... it is beginning to make sense now, "...here, use our convenient, totally anonymous software anytime you are going to release information of national consequence...." 174.64.101.220 (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)BGriffin

July 2015
I worked on this page a long time ago and was hoping someone else would remove the issue tags. No one has so I took up the gauntlet. The page now has several sources and the external links section looks good. Let me know if anyone would like me to improve the page further. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Oops, tag came after my edits. Still, I nonetheless feel the page has been improved to merit this removal. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Implementations table : reorganize the columns order ?
I think that the table should be more useful to readers if sorted differently: instead of "Name of organization / Implementation date / Category / Tor Url / Tor2web Url / Country", I would prefer "Country / Category / Name of organization / Implementation date / Tor Url / Tor2web Url". As I have the time to do it, if I get no comment against this idea, I will do it in the next months. --Dadu (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not certain whether that table should be here at all. The policy for software is different for some other article types, because readers expect self-published information about things like versions and implementations. Perhaps check in with WikiProject Software and see if anyone has an opinion there, and also to get confirmation that this table should be in the article.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)