Talk:Winlink

Please add to discussion at end of talk:

More copivio discussions

The Winlink article looks like a mere crib of winlink.org's mainpage :( 154.20.152.71 05:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and it shows a very one-sided view of the system. Not mentioned are the interference issues, the fact that the only way to participate is by the purchase of a commercial modem, the fact that the protocols in use are not published and considered to be commercial assets .. this system doesn't even attempt to pay lip service to the main tenents of Amateur Radio - experimentation and furthering of the arts, interpersonal communications over radio promoting international goodwill, no commercial uses, etc. It's a sad state of affairs that the main organization representing Amateur Radio in the U.S. is deep in bed with these people and are ready to throw it's membership under the bus to further Winlink's aims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeke7237 (talk • contribs) .

Are you sure its all that bad? Between what I just read at pactor protocol details and an arrl site it looks like a lot of info is available. - Davandron | Talk 13:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that a section called "Controversy" needs to be added. WinLink is controversial for a number of reasons, and the ARRL recently had to withdraw its bandwidth by regulation proposal from the FCC because of a large number of comments about it being used to allow WinLink to crash all over the CW/digital portions of the bands. Then there is the third party traffic issue. Many WinLink users seem to be simply boaters who want to have free/cheap maritime mobile email and are using ham radio exclusively for that purpose. PactorII/III is also a closed protocol. This means de-facto encryption unless you shell out >$1000 for a SCS modem. -- Ryan 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying a thing does not make it true, but as some very vocal people have found out, if you say it loud enough and to enough people you will obtain sufficient support where even those that "know" better will act. It's called Propaganda. 71.219.161.42 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I essentially agree with you. The whole WinLink crowd has been propagandizing the mode, saying it's for emergency communications, when really most of the users are boaters who want a means of sending third party traffic (email) at sea without paying for it and without restrictions. I used to help run a PBBS at one time. It's a great mode, but I think that it doesn't have enough safeguards in place without segregating automatically controlled stations to one portion of each HF ham band, as it is now. - Ryan 19:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy additions

The changes added in the 'Controversy' paragraphs include a number of statements that are strong opinion and not factual or verifiable through an independent third source. Edits have been made to adhere to Wikipedia's policies on NPOV and NOR (Neutral Point of View and No Original Research).--Lor 18:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Removal

I disagree with the recent removal of the Controversy section this paints Winlink as the savior of us all and I don't consider the article to convey a NPOV at all it strikes me an advertisement of a proprietary product, the SCS Modem. Alan Kroeger 15:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You certainly entitled to hold an opinion. Articles, however must adhere to the published standards. There is no place for unverified facts and opinion in an article. Just play by the rules and all will be fine. --Lor 04:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can provide proof if you want screen captures of a winlink station crashing several of my QSO's. I will send them to the editors of wikipedia if they like so they can put in a section of how winlink causes harmful interference and also put in a link where users can go file a report of interference to the FCC direct. KC7GNM 22 September 2007, 2234 UTC.

There is no doubt that Pactor transmissions interfere with other amateur communications. There is also no doubt that all other amateur modes of transmission interfere with other QSOs. Try busting a pileup or operating during any weekend contest. The issue is that there are many venues for complaining, reporting infractions to the FCC and and interactive communications--then there is Wikipedia, where established standards for articles exist. This just is not the forum for an online debate. --Lor 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

W3QA- I can now see you are a winlink shill because just above you asked for facts and I offered to give you facts but now you don't want them because you think it a debate. If what you say is true about the standards then you need to remove the whole winlink article because it looks like advertising to me. Especially the first couple of paragraphs. KC7GNM 26 September 2007, 14:28 UTC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.22.106.179 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with this removal. Censoring negative, yet relevant information is against key policy #5 "Avoid bias." Also, articles that look like advertisements are against policy. Other supported points of view should be expressed. I suggest someone rewrite it with supporting screen shots and perhaps links to multiple QRZ.com and other forum posts complaining about the QRM. At that point, the facts will be shown for what they are. --- k5jat 21:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows that people see facts differently. Better that these things be identified under a controversy heading than edited into the main body. It seems we have some savvy wikipedia users here, what usually comes after the removal of controversial subjects from wiki entries? Vandalism and then counter vandalism, that is what, and nobody wants that.--Josephdurnal 18:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to me to be astonishingly badly written; it reads like an advertisement. It only portrays one side of a controversial subject. It goes so far as to give an insulting label, "stone age", to a petition written by those on the other side of the controversy. Some encyclopedia article -- no wonder the amateur radio pages on Wikipedia have a bad reputation for quality. Why on earth was the controversy section removed? Rclocher3 (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

How It works

The How It works section looks to much like a howto section which violates wiki's edicts against howto articles Alan Kroeger 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The title seems to be the only content that suggests a recipe for a "howto". The title was therefore changed to " Network Design". Thanks for your comment.--Lor 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Article is too long

Is too long and it seems to contain information that exists in other articles. It also sounds like an advertisement too Winlink is not the savior that it is inferred to be in this article Alan Kroeger 16:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Winlink needs no advertising. It is what it is. I have added a bibliography of independent articles that verify that. It makes no money for any of it's volunteers, there are no paid individuals or employees, and is only a user of the technologies it employs and the products that enable it. Kantronics is as much a beneficiary of Winlink's existence as SCS or as Icom, Kenwood, Ten-tec, Alinco, or Yaesu. What valid reasons--specific to the Winlink 2000 system and not other amateur communications systems or modes--can you offer for your negative comments? Please be specific and show reason for a change, and they will receive my full support! Thanks for prompting me to make the article a bit better.--Lor 19:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article is too long. The history could probably be borken up into several articles and linked--Josephdurnal 18:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

About to perform a copyvioectomy/stubification

I am just getting into amateur radio but have been around WP for awhile. This article is one big advert/rambling wreck that needs:
1. The copy vio jetted asap (intro is nearly all copyvio. History IS all copyvio)
2. Structure
3. Less advertising like tone and more encyclopedic tone.

Please feel free to correct me on any of these particular issues but I can back each one of these up with evidence. Spryde 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Phase One complete. Most of the copyvio has been removed along with the peacock terms that puff up Winlink. Phase two is building this up using solid references and providing a better structure. The winlink site can be used as a reference but ideally there would be secondary sources instead of just a primary source. I will be doing that a bit slower as getting the wording right takes longer than finding copyvio unfortunately. Spryde 19:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow - the article lost a lot of good information. But I should agree that a lot of it was like an ad and was a bit rambly (is that a word). 73 de NE3R --Josephdurnal 14:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize but most of it was copy and paste from the Winlink site itself. We can't have that. It has to be reworded and sourced to be included. Spryde 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No apology necessary, you’ve done more harm than goodgood than harm. I was thinking the same thing, but I’m too chicken to make such big changes. Thanks! --Josephdurnal 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I just came back here to find some information I was looking for missing. When will you be adding back in the good information that you removed? Seems pretty drastic to me. Now I have a research project when I know the information I need regarding MARS was once here. It does not appear on the Winlink web site. Please add it back!--Rolluton 03:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything that was removed is in the history or the original source for it is in my edit summaries (found in the history as well). When I find Copyvio, I try to point out where it was found. Spryde 10:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Spryde, thanks much for your Objective position and editing. WinLink is the center for much emotional debate in the field of amateur radio digital modes, and this article is at risk for serious vandalism. Also, several users have insisted that reference links point to bulletin boards where users are in heated flame wars, rather then verifiable sources of fact. Steven736 (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added information about the nature of WinLink Watch. In it's previous context, the reader is given the impression that there is a large organized group in opposition to pactor, when in Reality WinLink Watch is a site maintained, participated in, and created by a single entity with questionable motives. I also added information to the section that insists pactor 2 and 3 are closed, by pointing out the client software used with WinLink does not utilize the proprietary aspects of pactor. Plus, the proprietary nature of specific parts of pactor are covered in the wikipedia pactor article.

Steven736 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

There has recently a been a bit of back and forth in various fora between Winlink advocates and opponents as petitions work through the FCC rulemaking and comment process which could have impacts on both Winlink and other users of the portions of amateur spectrum where automated operation is permitted the US.

A number of additions were made to the article in January 2019 which seem to be focused on one side of the debate, and while they are sourced, one must wonder about the neutrality/objectivity of the cited sources and content.

Accordingly, I am tagging the page as potentially being in violation of [WP:NPOV] and in need of a degree of globalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeTheActuary (talk • contribs) 00:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the start here. I'm looking over some things that need changes, like an edit to the 4th paragraph of the Controversies and U.S. Regulatory issues topic. As currently worded, it implies that there is no documentation of the technical characteristics of the newer versions of Pactor, as well as several of the other modes that are used by Winlink. I am also considering an edit of the first paragraph of that topic to remove the reference to the Pactor compression, since it's stated in the previous section that the Pactor compression is not used. And the reference used in that case actually doesn't support the claim being made anyway. Daywalker03 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I provided numerous edits to bring the article back into balance after the obvious Winlink opponent vandalism. Removed the inference and reference that Sailmail was associated with Winlink. Removed all opponent edits to the ""controversies"" section. Added balance to the controversies section by citing proponent documents and support fact.MannDerWelt (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

US focus

There is a focus in teh article on regulatory issues in the US. I notice that there are plenty of countries with no issues with Winlink, and other countries like the UK with no winlink stations at all. I would like to know which countries are allowed to run a winlink node and which are not. If there is a source for this information I am happy to write that part of the article, but a long discussion of the FCC rules is not so interesting to the rest of the (English reading) world. Billlion (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Pactor and DA 95-2106

It seems that there is a conception that Pactor 1 is the only version allowed under DA 95-2106, since the document only refers to it specifically. My opnion on this is that the FCC was willing to allow proprietary modes, whether multiple vendors supplied it or not, as long as there was some kind of description of how it worked so that someone with the technical capabilities could duplicate the mode if they were so inclined. SCS has in fact provided technical documentation of not only Pactor 1, but the newer versions and the compression they use natively, even though Winlink does not use it. Daywalker03 (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)