Talk:GWFreaks

This is blatant self-advertizement. --Karlos 17:02, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

GuildWiki should decide if they want or not and article on the most popular guild wars character builder... there is always many link to GWFreaks in other page in this site. --Zyo 17:06, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree - blatant self-advertising; but it's also a useful tool. We should either completely re-write (can be greatly condensed to just a couple paragraphs, no need for a GWfreaks user manual here); or create a generic "build organizer" article that references this tool as one of a few that are available and reliable.
 * On a legal note, the icon used in this article may have trademark issues around it. Their site gives two bar-shaped icons for linking, which contain part of the icon graphic as well as the site name.  IF any icon is used here, I recommend using one of their allowed linking graphics. --161.88.255.140 17:08, 24 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Agreed. I wouldn'd mind keeping the article (as it seems to be a popular tool, after all we also have an article about voice chat, which at least mentions other 3rd party software, too). But if we do, we should trim it down a lot. This isn't supposed to be a manual for that software but a short summary of what it does. And a link to the official homepage, of course. :) --84-175 (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh my oh my. Hard decisions. I like this tool very much, but we have already decided not to hold articles for fansites or guilds, so why would we accept one for a fanprogram? As much as I would like everyone to know about the program, I still vote for deleting this article for the same reasons as all fansite and guild articles have been removed. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 17:09, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * While it may be blatant advertisement, it is also a program that many people use. I say keep it and stick it in the Software category.  (The icon may have to go tho.)  --Rainith 17:12, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * To me, we should base how to handle this article the same as Teamspeak and Ventrillo, rather than how we handle guilds and fansites. --161.88.255.140 17:14, 24 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Additng to the pileon: As far as I am concerned, the decision is easy: NO. Your program already has enough exposure on gwonline. Guild Wiki is about the game Guild Wars, not about some incidental utility. An article about it on guildwiki by the author of the program is a self-promotion. The last time someone tried to do any self-promotion here, guildwiki nearly collapsed in a miasma of hatred, and the perpetrator that time was the very person who runs this site!


 * Now about your side point that there are many mentions of gwfreaks from guildwiki: (a) you're wrong: aside from this article there is exactly one mention of it on GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Builds/archive 1, which you'll note is an archive of a discussion page, and (b) any mention can simply be accompanied with an external link to your program's website. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 17:13, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

I agree with Karlos, and with not knowing this program, to me it would seem like another try to rip me of my account name and password. if this is becoming a vote, I vote as Gem. Foo 17:10, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * As of the last time I used it, you didn't enter you account info into it. Been quite a while tho.  --Rainith 17:12, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Many gw "enhancing" programs will monitor your keyboard to capture your account details, and probably your mail ones, in order to remove and controll your account. I understand this one is known, but when another one will be advertised here, it's enough for one player to lose his account before a slow revert, to unjustify this kind of pages. Foo 17:18, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * We've long had links to Ventrilo and Teamspeak as part of the voice chat article. Aren't they basically the same?  Changing how we handle things now should also impact how those useful tools are listed. --161.88.255.140 17:21, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Key differences -- those articles were not written by the authors of Ventrilo and TS, they weren't user manuals for Vent or TS, and TS and Ventrilo have a life independent of Guild Wars and its fansites. Furthermore, Anet themselves recommend TeamSpeak and gave subscriptions to it in their GWP collector's editions. That alone blesses an article on TeamSpeak as noteworthy. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 17:26, 24 April 2006 (CDT)


 * there exist programs taht can keylog AND take screenshot (in case you have GW memorize your login), so the only safe way to run third party programs in general is to run it on a separate machine that's not connected to the internet. Now, in the specific case of GWFreaks, because it has been around for a long time, I'm willing to believe it is legit, but I won't vouch for it.  Perhaps bad things can simply be introduced in the next version after it has build up enough trust, OR someone could put up an altered version of the program (with keyloggers and such) on their own site, claiming to be a "mirror" of the real (and clean) version of GWFreaks, etc etc.  I think we should process third-party programs like fansites and stuff, use one overarching article, with disclaimers and stuff. -PanSola 17:22, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I think disclaimers and stuff are not enough here. there should be more responsibility taken towards our users. I dont want this comunity telling someone "we warned you" after he lost an account. Foo 17:30, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * It might have a keylogger, but I have my firewall block the program (Firewall hasn't ever told me that the program is trying to access the internet, so probably it won't try), so no worries for me. I also don't have the program on when I log into GW. I still vote for deletion, but I might be ok with handling it like Vent and TS now. Then we should also add The Edge. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 17:25, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * PanSola - That could be said of any program on your computer. Easy way to check too, use a firewall program, do not let the GWFreaks program access the internet, period.  Don't let it check for updates, do that manually, and there are no major worries.  (Gem beat me to it there.)  --Rainith 17:27, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Nothing is "easy to check". without being a security wizard, I can say that any of those programs can easely bypass it by using IE, netscape or firefox, in order to send those details without being firewalled. I am sure there are many more ways. Foo 17:32, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Most of your better firewalls today would catch those types of tricks. --161.88.255.140 17:33, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I use Sygate Personal Firewall, which is free. It notices application hijacking and asks permission for all processes for internet access (even windows' own processes). I recommend it to everyone. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 17:39, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * The concern is not for the people in this discussion, but for every guildwiki visitor, and if you could make them all use your firewall program before then venture into an article like this, then fine, but just as we cant assume everyone is careful, we can not assume everyone uses a firewall. Foo 17:46, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * You misunderstood my point, but I didn't make it very clear. I am willing to add instructions on how to set up a firewall on the page linking to 3rd party softwares. Remember that if they can't find it here they will find it somewhere else, and that place probably will not have safety notes and guides. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 17:54, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * This sounds now like the old debate of sexual aducation in school. :] telling the users of the dangers, and providing protection from them, will be good anyway, if we allow this kind of articles or not. I would rather tell them that those programs exist, how to protect from there, and let them go find it somewhere else. (as in school, where you are told of VDs and how to protect yourself from them, but you are not invited to sleep with the teacher ;] ) Foo 18:01, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * You're right. I'm revoking my vote from above. I say we keep one general article about 3rd party programs that expecitly warns about the damger of keyboard loggers and the like, not mentioning any specific programs at all. While this may be unfair towards some good programs out there, I see it as the best option. --84-175 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * That seems reasonable. Create a single third-party software article, with one sentence descriptions of each product, as well as a list of disclaimers and user-be-ware type stuff on it.  Migrate all the voice chat links, as well as any other relevant ones to that article.  Who wants to implement (I'm short on time today, or I would)? --161.88.255.140 17:28, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I'll have to agree with 84.175 about not mentioning any specific programs at all, with the exception of programs Anet has named. Foo 17:36, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

It's your decision to remove the article... I wrote it but I guest it's not a good place to host information about it... If you beleive that only gwonline have accept gwfreaks open your eye (maybe search over google) and it's not a fan site tool... First GWFreaks is not linked with any fan site, full open xml database and template and is translated into 13 languages... who did that ever before? -Zyo 18:28, 24 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Your specific claim was that "there is always many link to GWFreaks in other page in this site". There isn't. Either you didn't write what you meant, or you are mistaken. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 17:31, 24 April 2006 (CDT)


 * http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Build bring 500+ referal per month... -Zyo 18:35, 24 April 2006 (EST)


 * Your claim was that gwfreaks is linked from "many link" in this site. That is simply false. One link. On one page. That is the extent of exposure guildwiki has given your site and program. If you do not like that, I am sure we can remove the link. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 17:39, 24 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Your right, I've check this morning the referal and saw 2 pages from Wiki... so I wrote an article. I just catch that both build and builds is the same page. As you can see there: http://www.gwfreaks.com/current/#ref
 * A) Zyo, careful with your edits - DO NOT erase other peoples posts in discussion pages.
 * B) The post that was removed: ":::The fact that another article links to it does not remove the concerns or eliminate the need for discussion. If anything, it emphasizes the need for this discussion."
 * --161.88.255.140 17:44, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * As stated earlier I might accept something done with this like with Vent and TS, but I dsagree with having the link at the builds page. I have never noticed it there before and if no one disagrees soon I will remove it. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 17:45, 24 April 2006 (CDT)


 * A) Sorry, I'm not a wiki user.
 * B) Up to you man. you can delete everything related to GWFreaks even if it's there for weeks (remember that I've post here today for the first time). In any case, I'm sure you will take the right decision about what should be present or not on this web site. I've enjoy my first "wiki trip"... but I have lots of other stuff to do. Anyone can contact me directly with the email on gwfreaks' home page. -Zyo 18:51, 24 April 2006 (EST)

To clarify my position. You will note that I put a cleanup tag, not a delete tag. I don't think this article should go IF it's as popular as the author claims. It should just be slapped with the Category:Software and shortened into a few paragraphs describing what it is and with a CLEAR warning that like aNY third party software not endorsed by ANet it may not be safe to use it. The cleanup tag because (as many have mentioned above) it's self-advertizing and it's a user manual. We are not a wiki for that tool. --Karlos 18:41, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * We're way ahead of you on that - check the article ... trimmed and the warning added about half an hour ago. --161.88.255.140 18:43, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

This thing is popular and it actually does something. We should document it. But make the article short and to the point, like it is now. Just explain where to get the tool and what it does, vaguely. I think the "oh, noes, spyware!" people are a bit off their rockers: this thing doesn't ask for account info and isn't a run-while-you-play kind of application. It's only potentially threatening if pretty much all software is potentially threatening. We should have a big note on the general category page and leave it at that. (I mean, I'd distrust any program I download a bit, but I see no reason to think that, say, DirectSong is any more trustworthy. It's a very mild level of distrust.) &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 18:51, 24 April 2006 (CDT) )


 * Every one of your suggestions has already been implemented. See Template:Third party software, DirectSong, the current version of GWFreaks, The Edge, etc. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:53, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Yup. Done and done well (thank you!). Just wanted to throw some support for the idea in, because opinion seemed fairly strongly against it. Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to be innovative or take credit or whatever; I wasn't. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 19:43, 24 April 2006 (CDT) )


 * Regardless on whether this program does contain any form of viruses or loggers I belive it should still be noted on the site. Guildwiki has always been about giving the user the most information about guildwars we possibly can. I think it's when we limit information we do a disservice to the community. Perhap's this program does contain a virus/logger, wouldn't it be better for the user to read about that here then to download the program and find out for themselves? I would much rather the Wiki educate people on these programs and warn people if such viruses exist in them then to say nothing at all.--The King Tarosian 03:56, 25 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm fine with the software template as it exists at the moment, and I think it's okay to slap that on specific pages since it's become tradition to put these kind of notes up everywhere (e.g. on builds) and it seems to be working okay so far. I think any more would be an exercise in hystrionic overprotectiveness, however. Unless you analyse the source code of the program, compiler, libraries it links to, &c. with mathematical rigor, any peice of software you ever run or install could be some kind of Trojan horse. Gentle reminders are great; given that someone must know something about basic computer use just to get to this website or even have a reason to look for it in the first place, anything beyond that just feels like pointless condescension to me. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:22, 25 April 2006 (CDT) )

Comments about the software tool itself
The above acerbic discussion excepted, this is a pretty neat tool. I wish there was a version of it for Linux as I rarely ever boot into Windows now that I have GW working reliably in cedega. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:04, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * If you're using Cedega, it's pretty simple to run this as well. Just run 'cedega /path/to/application.exe' from a shell. In fact, it's a far better way of running it, as it's somewhat sandboxed, and you're a lot less likely to get your account information stolen :) LordKestrel 03:41, 25 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Already tried it, my dear fellow. Doesn't run. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 06:45, 25 April 2006 (CDT)