Talk:Taringa!

Untitled

This website is very important in latin america. Please check the Alexa rank from this site: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/taringa.net

Could you explain this edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taringa!&diff=410632803&oldid=410632488

Looked like content removal w/o reason, if it was good faith, that's ok. Ronk01 talk 21:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, i think, the reason why i changed it is pretty obvious if you follow the "sources". There is a forum being used to accuse the vast majority of users of copyright infringement and that same forum accuses moderators of copyright infringement, but if you follow what the forum says the user it accuses is not even a moderator (not to mention this is talking about only one user). Benjamin breaking (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin, posting copyrighted content is an infringment of copyright, no matter if it appears on a forum or in a book of science. Your position about taringa which clearly violates any rule about registered content, is anything but impartial. What a shame. Fma12 (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(copy paste so i don't have to write the same thing again) Benjamin breaking (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just two more things i want to clarify:

• There is no point in saying taringa is not google (we could say taringa is not youtube either).
• To accuse someone of copyright infrigement there must be sources that be trustworthy and the topic has to become relevant outside of wikipedia before we can include it. "the owners of Taringa are clearly breaking the law" is something that can be clearly included when it appears in more than one newspaaper like clarin or la nacion or if taringa owners be taken to the court.

Benjamin breaking (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin, there IS a point in saying taringa is not google, because if you read the interview cited, it were the owners of taringa themselves who named google, comparing both sites. This comparison is clearly wrong because taringa works in a different way than google. As a matter of fact, taringa DOES has loads of post containing copyrighted material. No matters if the website doesn´t host them in its own servers, forbidden links are ON taringa pages. And this is an infringment of copyright, because the site has moderators and the links remains for a long time without deletion. This also consists of an infringment of the law although its owners deny the charges. All the texts about laws breaking are referenced with reliable sources. You can find them on the web and read for yourself and you will understand what the article talks about. Fma12 (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Garnet 753 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Take youtube as an example. The article covers copyright infrigement issues not only because you can go to youtube and find copyright material illegally uploaded, but also because Viacom filed a US$1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube (so it is a fact that google has had legal problems with youtube) and it was covered by the BBC, therefore it is notable. Garnet 753 (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I do know that youtube has loads of illegal content. But what I´m discussing is the cynicism showed by taringa owners, who insist in deny what is evident: taringa DOES has illegal content as you tube or other websites have. About the "reliable" sources that you mention, just take a look to taringa homepage and you´ll see by yourself what sort of links or articles exist there. Many webpages has been closed because of their illegal contents, and they just contained the links, without hosting any file on their servers. Blaming on users that post copyrighted files is the easy way, but taringa owners do know their site is infringing the law; at least in Argentina, what they do is illegal. Fma12 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have already told you about Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Now, let me tell you that wikipedia doesn't allow original research Garnet 753 (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You had already mentioned original research before, so it was not necessary to cite it again, but thanks anyway. My question is, don´t you have anything to say about how Taringa allows copyrighted material on its webpage? That was what I´m really talking about, the infringment of copyright. Fma12 (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not to write your own thoughts on a topic or a place to add non-notable material, if you feel like doing so, you could do it on a blog or in taringa itself. Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research. Garnet 753 (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be a little confused about what Wikipedia is. You limited to edit the contents I had previously written (using the same sources) to adjust the text at your convenience. What the texts say is just what happens with taringa. I have been explained a lot of times (although the text claryfies it enough) that taringa is plenty of links to illegal material while the owners of that website not only denied what is evident but they also blame on their users without assuming their own responsibilities. For example, could you explain me what criterion you was based on to delete a quote where a lawyer talks about the infringment of copyright? This paragraph provides a very specific information about how Law should be apply in cases like taringa; Isn't it a reliable source for you? If you are a taringa fan, sorry but this is not the right place to manipulate texts as you do in order to justify what taringa does. And if you have anything to refuse my arguments, you are welcome but at least try to cite new sources that can give consistency to your point of view. Fma12 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again you don't seem to understand that wikipedia has policies. Wikipedia is not to write your own thoughts on a topic or a place to add non-notable material, if you feel like doing so, you could do it on a blog or in taringa itself. See Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. Garnet 753 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been clear enough. All the information is referenced to their sources, there are not thoughts or partial points of view. Just take a look to the references and see for yourself. Now there is a legal issue in Argentina: for the first time the owners of the website are being sued for infringing copyright laws. Fma12 (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

why is it compared to the pirate bay?

The Pirate Bay, at least at the first glance, is a pure filesharing website. On Taringa people are not only sharing software, movies, etc. but also thoughts and information. Is that new paragraph sponsored by the RIAA or what? I don't understand why such blatantly wrong and missleading information is not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.53.206 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph was written by me, and was deleted because as you said, Taringa is not the same that Pirate Bay, but is also full of illegal contents that in most of the cases are not removed by the administrators. What I don't understand is why you got annoyed that way. Take it easy. Fma12 (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Botbol brothers were found guilty of infringing the article 72

I"ve changed that part because of what the source (http://www.perfil.com/contenidos/2011/05/09/noticia_0029.html) says:

"Tras confirmar el procesamiento, los jueces también ratificaron el embargo de 200 mil pesos, pero descartaron la posibilidad de que los empresarios fuesen detenidos"

"Fueron embargados por 200 mil pesos y quedaron al borde del juicio oral."

I think it would good to have an Argentine lawyer, or someone familiarized with argentine Law (legal tranlsator) to interpretate what the source say or at least a good legal dictionary available for free (from Argentina of course). I think you have to go to trial before being found "culpable" (guilty) (Art. 18.- Ningún habitante de la Nación puede ser penado sin juicio). I have also tried to find the meaning of "embargo" (which i don't know) in wordreference http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=234654 and other places, although without being a lawyer it would be difficult to fully grasp what embargo means considering i'm not familiarized with argentinian law, but it looks like "embargo" in Argentina is a "medida cautelar".

Furthermore, if it is a medida cautelar, this part:"were sentenced to pay $ 200,000 (USD 50,000)." may not be a correct translation (maybe they will be returned the money or not depending on the results affter the juicio oral). If it is not a medida cautelar, and there is a 100% certainty they will pay that money, and won't see that money again, i think it's ok to say that they were sentenced to pay that amount. In short: it might be an "embargo preventivo".

Anyway, FMA12 should be a little more careful when accusing people of being guilty: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Enza a manif (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer and surely there could be mistakes when one has to use legal vocabulary. I'm not accused anyboy of being guilty, there is a court which will pronounce a verdict in the future. If you can provide a better translation, go ahead; this is good for this article in particular and is good for wikipedia as well.

What you made wrong it to infere that I could be written this with bad faith. Who should be more careful with the way you understand what other people think is YOU. Fma12 (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm from argentina, so let me clarify this: "Tras confirmar el procesamiento, los jueces también ratificaron el embargo de 200 mil pesos, pero descartaron la posibilidad de que los empresarios fuesen detenidos" translates to "After confirming the process, the judges aproved the seizure of 200 thousand pesos, pero discarted the posibility of arresting the buisinessmen". "y quedaron al borde del juicio oral." translates to "and were on the brink of an oral trail" (generally, as far as I understand, civic trails are written only, and only some critical penal trails are oral.). Hope this helps. HuGo_87 (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

horrible english

Whoever wrote this article, should take some English lessons. Most sentences are kward, using Spanish grammatical structure. I suspect that it may had written by its own team to self-promote their site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.219.228 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

  I think you're right, the article itself sounds overly positive about taringa, and gives a lot of facts that would fit in their own biased about-page 80.56.75.148 (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you: some sections (with reliable sources) that referred to legal issues regarding copyright infringments had been removed without any valid reason. As a result, I've just restored the erased content, with the hope that it remains on the article. From now on, any removal of content will be considered vandalism - Fma12 (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

After reading the article I added the template POV, especially because it makes look like the website is more visited and active than it really is, as well as more unique. LGA EGA (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The true about Taringa social network

The fact about this social network after a year of research is rule by the same users and in self office with a few freelance employees without pay and also with no degrees in Computer Science or programing. most of the user are people from all South America in the next percent, Argentina 80% Mexican 10% Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay about 5% and the rest are just zombies user created by a robot. The public here have a range of 11 to 20 years old, and when they pass the time barrier of 25 years old, mostly resign to his own profile. About how this site is rule: The user don't have the chance to erase his own data and are active as datasheet in they servers for ever. The Policia Federal Argentina or Argentina Police (Mostly incompetent and corrupt people without primary school finish) have the 90% of participation in this company looking for observe the citizen and his behavior looking for subversive groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.224.251 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This definitely need one tag: HuGo_87 (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

el server solitario,extrano jugador

yo Dire la verdad nada es mentira lo que cuente es verdad esto paso cuando fue el dia de la mama mi mama abian echo asado yo me habia en fermado mi hermano el abia jugado team fortress 2 le abia prestado mi maus el habia jugado en casual y manco vs machine el se conecto a hun servidor solo para praticar o para jugar un rato el se mobia en el mapa el se fue a la base red y derepente ocurre que un jugador llamado 1234 que se a unido en la partida pero mi hermano vio si se conecto y no habia nada yo le dije que extraño mi hermano lo busco y no lo encontro mi sobrino se lo contamos y le dijimos que no era mentira yo le dije que sera mejor salirse de ese servidor y yo le habia dicho que contaria esto yo y mi hermano seguimos jugando team fortress 2 y olvidarme del tema