This article is essentially propaganda and needs to be completely rewritten. Anybody?
I disagree. It overstretches itself and is a bit redundant, but I don't think it's completely worthless. Attempting revisions below.
- I didn't say it was completely worthless, I said it was essentially propaganda, which it is (there's nothing wrong with that--it's just not encyclopedic), and that it needs to be completely rewritten, which it does. I'd prefer that someone who actually knows about freenet do it, since I don't... --LMS
- Well, I wrote most of the official Freenet FAQ, which I like to think is pretty neutral, but I certainly am not very neutral about the subject itself, so maybe I'm not the best one to do it. I can certainly answer the technical questions anyone writing this might have. --LDC
The term freenet has an older meaning, refering to text-based community networks offering limited Internet services for no charge. --STG
Since I put the initial article here, I'll take a stab at rewriting it tonight in a way more oriented toward how it works rather than the goals it was created for. --Bryan Derksen
There's nothing wrong with covering its goals, either; so long as you correctly point out that those are, in fact, goals of the project (the present article simply says "Freenet is...", blindly assuming that the goals have in fact been achieved). --LDC