Talk:Jabber

Badly formulated criticism on XMPP addresses

 * In the criticism section, the second item mentions the XMPP address (the JIDs) format as a problem. I feel that it is bullshit. First of all, the XMMP address format is also common to other IM services like MSN messenger. Second, the Jabber protocols or even the server themselves don't demand that, when registering an account, the user also registers or supplies an email account with the same address. That makes me feel that the criticism is misguided because, frankly, it's a non-issue.

Therefore I suggest that the second item of the criticism section is removed and the section rewritten. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research
The section on the lack of nudges and other crap slowing adoption is obviously original commentary. It really needs to be sourced, it looks pretty obviously POV just now. Chris Cunningham 15:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that you missed the point. The section you just edited out was about criticism pointed at the jabber protocol and the lack of adoption it is having. One of the things which is hindering adoption is the lack of small, unimportant features which are presented in other IM services with large adoption. I stated a couple of features present in the dominant IM service, which the lack of them are stated as the number one reason for not migrating. So please at least read what is being written before giving away silly statements and accusations like those. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't source them, so as far as anyone is concerned it's your personal opinion. When you can justify the inclusion of your opinion piece with some suitable references from elsewhere, it can go back in. My reading skills are perfectly decent, thanks. Chris Cunningham 13:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible mistake
The text says,


 * Users can then contact from a client such as MSN Messenger using the JID form user%msn.com@msn.jabberserver.com

Isn't this the other way, i.e., contacting an MSN user from a Jabber client? – Torsten Bronger 07:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think this looks backwards too, from my understanding of it. Perhaps it should read "Jabber users can then, for example, contact MSN Messenger users using the JID form user%msn.com@msn.jabberserver.com"? -Maebmij 02:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Meebo is listed as a Jabber Service Provider. I'm fairly sure this is incorrect; the confusion may be because Meebo is a Jabber client --CCouzens 15:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for article clean-up
The words "Proven", "Flexible", and "Secure" are not encyclopedia terms. They are used more in marketing articles and are subjective. I would request citations or sticking to words that do not a convey an opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk • contribs).


 * I've made some changes to the section you disputed above; it certainly seems strange to use marketing terms to describe something that's not a company or a product. The problem here is that the article is a link farm. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The terms "Totally secure and anonymous", used in the disambiguation page, do not seem to apply to general article policies. 88.153.64.78 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Jabber chat is broken
The Jabber chat is broken, due to the owner being AWOL and the chat being set to make people visitors instead of participants by default. This needs to be fixed. I would be willing to moderate. BalooUrsidae 04:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know what jabber.org's policies on taking over abandoned channels are? Plugwash 11:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what you mean by "the Jabber chat" but if you mean the room located at xmpp:jabber@conference.jabber.org then you are incorrect that the owner is AWOL (synic and I are owners) or that the room is unmoderated. If you desire moderation privileges in the room or if you would like to suggest room configuration changes, feel free to contact me via email or IM via stpeter@jabber.org! Stpeter 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I fixed the room configuration on the xmpp:wikipedia@conference.jabber.org room. Ping me if you need moderator privileges... Stpeter 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links?
Can't see why anyone might think that. I'm going to remove the template. Cain Mosni 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The list of regional communities is inappropriate. This isn't a directory service. I'm planning on removing it. Chris Cunningham 15:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking the same thing. If nothing else, it should be scaled back a bit (do we really need a half dozen Ukrainian servers)? But I think the whole thing can go—it does seem to violate Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. – Mipadi 15:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just got here to suggest the same thing. Go ahead, do it. --lynX


 * Done. NaturalBornKiller 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jabber Service Providers
Notable Jabber providers include... - what is the point in saying include here, as far as I can see this is a directory listing already.. who needs this list? If we have this here, can we add the same kind of listing to other protocols as well? I bet the list would be quite big for IRC... --lynX
 * Since there has been no reaction in weeks I opt for removal of this list. It is not the job of Wikipedia to recommend this or that host for your Jabber experience. Use the appropriate websites. --lynX

I started the section with Jabber Service Providers. First: there was no single external link, therefore I felt free to change the subject. Jabber is more than Google Talk. Jabber is an open network like e-Mail. The article should note that there are other large networks that use Jabber — worldwide. Some of these have millions of users (e.g. United Internet). Sure this section would be more interesting if it would include the numbers of Jabber users, but do you have the data?--Hhielscher 10:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I find the excessive mentioning of Google Talk unfortunate, too. But concerning your directory of large installations, just recently a List of web chat sites got deleted from Wikipedia, which had most large scale webchats listed by popularity - the popularity being measured by a pretty nifty tool that would figure out the popularity of the webchats in search engines. So apparently even such added value doesn't make a directory less of a directory. *shrug* Go figure. I personally am not Adam Ant about the no-directory policy, but if you'd like to have such a list, I'd like to have one for IRC, PSYC and to revert the deletion of the list of webchats. --lynX


 * This list of notable jabber service providers was not a directory. Thousands of pages, that are lists, exist in Wikipedia, see Category:Lists and List of social networking websites as an example.--Hhielscher 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What would your explanation be for this list to be legitimate whereas List of web chat sites not? And yes, List of social networking websites probably shouldn't exist either. It's a directory and apparently also a notorious battleground. If you think all of these should exist, how can we restore the List of web chat sites? --lynX

This article is far too technical for the average user
If I wanted to explain what Jabber was to somebody who was only familiar with say AIM and MSN Messenger, I'd not link to this.

The introduction would be just gibberish to them. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 10:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Chatroom
can we have a chatroom which is also accessible by IRC? --lynX
 * Why would you need IRC support? MUC is more powerful than IRC and there are at least the same amount of clients available with MUC (or conference) support as there are for IRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NaturalBornKiller (talk • contribs) 13 January 2007
 * Its certainly not impossible and i belive some irc networks may have done it (i don't have any names to hand though). it is tricky though especially if you want private messaging of users in the channel to work between the two sides. A particular problem is that jabber chat nicks are normally per room while irc nicks are global accross the whole network. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plugwash (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
 * MUC is certainly not more powerful than IRC, but there is no reason to serve up a religious discussion of MUC vs IRC here anyway because there are implementations that allow you to provide a chatroom for both IRC and Jabber users. So why go for less? Why force anyone to a specific system? --lynX
 * I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that seeing as it's a chatroom for, errr, discussing Jabber, that this might be a factor in the choice made. A bit of a logical leap I know, but it might just be true. Chris Cunningham 18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see the problem. Is there a problem about only allowing Jabber clients with MUC/conference support? This is a Talk page about Jabber... Afterall, if you believe allowing only MUC and no IRC clients is not a good thing, can you then tell my why these chatrooms are not accessible using MUC? Also, if you take in account that most (potential) Wikipedia contributors do not even know what IRC means without looking in Wikipedia ;-), it seems a bit strange that this 'instant messaging generation' do not has access to most rooms about Wikipedia. NaturalBornKiller 21:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know IRC Channels that are very well accessible by MUC protocol, and I thought the MUC you are promoting here is about discussing work on Wikipedia, because if it is about discussing Jabber, why does it have to be promoted here? Wikipedia is not a web directory. Alright so it is about discussing Jabber on Wikipedia - I see, well I wouldn't mind being able to join it. And yes I totally agree that the Wikipedia channels should also be accessible by MUC. So let's change that..? --lynX

I presume this is the wrong place to run this discussion. Continuation on Wikipedia_talk:IRC_channels

Merge with XMPP article
I propose that Jabber be merged with Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol, since these two articles describe the same protocol and this will minimize confusion. I suggest making the XMPP the current article and creating a history section with an overview of how Jabber came into being. riffic 13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)