Talk:Glider (bot)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

List of Minecraft characters (4 participants)
Carlton Wilborn (4 participants)
Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants)
Rat Race (video game) (7 participants)
Red Barrels (3 participants)
TheoTown (12 participants; relisted)
Old Grandma Hardcore (6 participants; relisted)
Zero Hour (video game) (6 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Actuality

Is this article still actual? Does Glider works with Cataclysm (maps changed)?91.199.156.161 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 'actual'. However Glider is illegal and no longer distributed. He's Gone Mental 14:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Here are some sources. Some are more reliable than others:

a post on Terra Nova (blog). (considered reliable for posters whose expertise falls into this field, which is almost all of them).
another
ZOMG blog from Matt Mihaly
initial gamasutra coverage
public knowledge's blog
first post on it from PK
post on the ruling
BBC article
ARS on the subject

there you go. Hope that helps. :) Protonk (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whoa, scholar hits

Paper from greg Lastowka. Published and he's a RS, by the way.
conference paper on cheating in games. mentions glider
conference paper on bot detection. mentions glider

Primary sources

Primary sources are OK for non-interpretive, descriptive claims that require no specialist knowledge to verify. See WP:PRIMARY. It seems to me that simple claims, such as Glider being $25 shareware, are better cited to a primary source. I wouldn't hurry too much to pack secondary sources into the article since Glider's notability is not in dispute. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I just replaces some primary sources with secondary sources. I replaced the footnotes that described PK's filing with links to reporting on the filing (previously the description was sourced to the primary document). It's also easier (I find) to get other editors to read secondary sources if they are linked in the article rather than listed in the talk page. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If" qualifier

I don't think that's accurate. The copyright violation penalties come from running instances of the software (ZOMG copying it into ram) in an unauthorized fashion. the TOS only comes into play because the product is licensed. If the product were sold (See the recent decision regarding sale of software and Autocad) then the actions taken by the user (causing copies to be loaded into ram) aren't really violations of blizzard's copyright. they would fit into the broad category of things the user could do with a product after first sale. So the violation of the TOS doesn't cause the copyright infringement but the copying does. Protonk (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick!!!

Ring the courts and tell them they are wrong!! We'll stay here till you get back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.117.1.11 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New source

A new source covering the court case, from yesterday by the BBC. I don't fully understand exactly what's going on with this stuff, but perhaps it might come in handy for expanding on something in this article. -- Sabre (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]