Jump to content

Talk:Internet/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Edit request from Isklar, 16 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This states that the USA laided down the foundations of the interent we knwo and use today, from my own vague knowledge i am fairly sure it was orginally developed at CERN, the science place. Should this not be mentioned as i think telling people that the USA did this is very misleading and stealing the credit?

Isklar (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. As noted in the text of the {{editsemiprotected}} template, "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"."
In addition, one of the core concepts of Wikipedia is verifiability. To that end, you must cite sources for factual changes to a well-established article like this. There are already sources cited in the article to prove the assertions that the United States' ARPANET was a predecessor of the Internet. --Darkwind (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe Isklar is thinking of CERN's role in the development of the World Wide Web, not the Internet. Tim Berners-Lee did his work there.Frappyjohn (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Duplication of 'education'

A week ago, I found that User:Hallenrm had inserted a mention of self education into a random section of the article. I removed it and added a whole paragraph on the subject, since it was not mentioned. I now see that Hallenrm has gone ahead again and added another paragraph on the same subject in a different place. So now we have duplication again. I think the new sub-section and the para I added should be merged to become either a section or a paragraph, not both. What do others think? --Nigelj (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A little sectioning history

At one time, there were lots more named and specific subsections in this article, "5. Modern usage: 5.1 Workplace, 5.2 Mobile devices, 5.3 Market, 5.4 Collaboration, 5.5 Remote access." And "6 Services: 6.1 E-mail, 6.2 World Wide Web, 6.3 File sharing, 6.4 Streaming media, 6.5 Internet telephony". Then, on 18 September 2009, User:Gary King came along and removed all the detailed sub-headings, amalgamating the material into the large "5 Modern uses", and "6 Services: 6.1 Information, 6.2 Communication, 6.3 Data transfer" sections we see today.[1]. Personally, I preferred the more detailed headings, as, in a large article, I think they help people see what we cover and where. Perhaps, as part of fixing this duplication, we should re-add detailed subheadings within these section, so that users like Hallenrm could more easily have seen whether we cover 'education, and if so where. Again, thoughts of all parties welcome here. --Nigelj (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

For someone who wants to fly in and look something up or make a short contribution, the detailed section headers would be helpful. For someone who is going to sit down and read the article, the larger sections are an improvement. It is possible that User:Gary King's changes were premature but, larger sections is where an article needs to head as it matures. --Kvng (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Spelling error in the History section

"Moderate" is misspelled in the second sentence of the last paragraph of the History section. HTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.205.87 (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

looks like someone quietly fixed this for you. --Kvng (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to add reference

I would like to add a reference to this --> Ryan, Johnny, A History of the Internet and the Digital Future. London: Reaktion Books, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nethistory (talk • contribs) 09:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

I'm an Italian wikipedia user. In the Italian wiki one of the first information is that: "Internet (dal latino inter, "tra" e dall'inglese net, "rete", tra la rete)"||translated: Internet (from Latin inter, "between", and from English net, "net", between the net) Now, I can't see any reference in the same page on the English wiki. I'd like to know if this etymology is truthful or not, since this word was born in the English language. I hope for an answer, thanks, grazie! ^^ --PastaMGW (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The OED says "Internet" is from a shortening of "internetwork", "perhaps influenced by similar words in -net". "internetwork" in turn is (obviously) just the prefix "inter-" plus the word "network". So, the etymology you gave isn't quite right. I'll see about adding the info to this enwiki article. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. You were OK until you said "between the net". It refers for interconnections between networks. Separate computer networks (universities, businesses, telecom providers etc) connected together by 'inter-net' connections to make the internet. --Nigelj (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both! ^^ See you! --PastaMGW (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the present text on the origins of the term is slightly misleading. In RFC 675, the terms "internet" and "internetwork" (the former appearing to be an abbreviation for the latter) are not used as nouns, but as an adjectives. The first use of "an internet" or "the internet" will need to be found elsewhere. Rp (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link on article "How the Internet Came to Be":

Now - http://www.internetvalley.com/archives/mirrors/cerf-how-inet.txt

Should be - http://www.netvalley.com/archives/mirrors/cerf-how-inet.txt

Wdigest (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done This prompted me to review the External links section. This is a great reference but not quite right for EL section. The corrected URL appears below. --Kvng (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the following from the External links section. They look like potentially good references but not appropriate for External links. --Kvng (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking I agree with your point, but please keep the How the Internet Came to Be in the External links section. I will keep it, if there will be space for only one link. Because this is ... Vinton Cerf, if you know what I mean. Wdigest (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I have used the Cerf reference in the History section where citation was requested. --Kvng (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Penis and poop network? How did that get in on a protected page? first paragraph. 173.54.216.132 (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have reverted it and informed the perpetrator. --Nigelj (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Great glad i could help! 173.54.216.132 (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

DNS root zone and the U.S. government

The government of the United States continues to have the primary role in approving changes to the DNS root zone that lies at the heart of the domain name system.

That claim is neither supported nor explained in DNS root zone, and is unreferenced. -- Beland (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where that came from, but it is (sort of) correct. The U.S. government continues to control the DNS root zone indirectly through the contract by which ICANN operates IANA on behalf of the U.S. government. (Remember, IANA in turn maintains and updates the root zone file.) Previously, there were two main contracts governing the ICANN/Department of Commerce relationship---the Memorandum of Understanding (later replaced by the Joint Project Agreement), and the IANA contract. The JPA contract has expired and was replaced by a very loose Affirmation of Commitments in 2009 (which essentially acknowledges that the transition of DNS control from the U.S. government to ICANN has largely taken place).
However, the IANA contract is still in effect, but is expected to come up for renewal this year. The Republican Party (which has retaken control of the House) is highly distrustful of any international institution the U.S. government does not directly or indirectly control. Therefore, it is likely that the Obama administration will quietly renew the IANA contract rather than risk an embarrassing confrontation with the Republicans on this issue (Obama will be concentrating on higher-profile issues like preventing a rollback of healthcare reform), thereby again reasserting the U.S. government's control over the root zone file. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"The ARPANET was one of the eve networks of today's Internet"

What does "eve" actually mean? I'm assuming it means as in Adam-and-Eve, but it's not really an instantly clear word, so perhaps this could be rephrased. 86.130.99.187 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Kbrose (talk · contribs) --Kvng (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Small grammatical error

'Connected' TV needs good internet connection. The image quality is depends on internet speed. As example for standard image quality needs 1 Mbps internet speed for SD 480p, requires 2.5 Mbps for HD 720p quality and the top-of-the-line HDX quality needs 4.5 Mbps for 1080p.[22]

Is depends? Orly? a small gripe, but it really stuck out at me. 164.116.47.180 (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Orangemike (talk · contribs) --Kvng (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Internet

Todos dicen que Internet fue inventado por los americanos. Pero me di cuenta de que Internet fue inventado por el suizo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.75.140 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web. Oh, please use English on the English WP talk pages. --Cyclopiatalk 19:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Public Avialibility

I read through, but I could not find anything about when internet became available to the public, not just used for military and business use. Does anyone have any clue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.78 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well research funded by the US government was generally in the public domain. But I think the real question is about commercial use. I would divide the history into three eras: 1. before National Science Foundation Network (around 1985) when it was only used by computer researchers, 2. transitional period when other educational and research users were added and commercial vendors started, 3. Removal of NSF's Acceptable Use Policy (after 1995). Actually, reading your question again, I think you are talking about residential use? That was even later. Probably needs to be summarized here and detailed in the history article. W Nowicki (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
See the article on the Commercial Internet eXchange (CIX). Also the History of the Internet article already includes the following:
Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1981 when the National Science Foundation (NSF) developed the Computer Science Network (CSNET) and again in 1986 when NSFNET provided access to supercomputer sites in the United States from research and education organizations. The ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990. Commercial internet service providers (ISPs) began to emerge in the late 1980s and 1990s and the Internet was commercialized in 1995 when NSFNET was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic.
Jeff Ogden (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The History needs to have the CSNET reference added to match "History of the Internet" article. As it is, it goes from ARPANET to NSFNET without noting the access was first expanded by CSNET. TcomptonMA (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually think the whole history section needs to get a haircut. As per WP:SUMMARY, History of the Internet should do the heavy lifting. --Kvng (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done I agree and so I went ahead and did it. The history section is shorter, but not short. More of a trim than a cut I guess. I used information from the History of the Internet article which had the benefit of mentioning CSNET, something requested by TcomptonMA. Jeff Ogden (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The internet is not based upon the TCP protocol

There are several applications (torrenting, game networks, video streaming applications, etc.) that do not use the TCP protocol at all. To say the Internet uses the IP/TCP protocol in the manner that it's based on such a protocol is misleading and even incorrect if looked at from a certain perspective. I've made changes according to the first line of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerquip (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The use of the name TCP/IP was restored. I agree that that is the right thing to do. When the name TCP/IP is used, it is referring not to the two protocols that make up the name (TCP and IP), but to the family of protocols that make up the Internet Protocol Suite. It doesn't really matter to this argument, but while it is true that some applications don't use TCP, almost all use IP. Jeff Ogden (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason to perpetuate the inaccuracy, no more so than those in the know would use "baud" and "bits per second" completely interchangeably despite an alarmingly large number of people who do confuse them. Therefore I am removing the "TCP/" from the lead section. I really do not mean to start a continuous string of editing changes, but we'll see if this edit ultimately remains. -- Joe (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Internet first milestone

It seems to me that it will makes sense to include the following details to the first phrase of History section: In response to the launch of Sputnik, the US Department of Defense issues February 7th, 1958 the directive 5105.15 establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA).

The source can be for instance "The Roads and Crossroads of Internet History" http://www.netvalley.com/intval.html --Dril211 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Rendering problem?

I seem to be getting a strange rendering problem displaying this page on both Chrome and Firefox. See screenshot: http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/runescapeandmaple/internetrendering.jpg I've traced the problem to the 

{{Area networks}}

code added by Cybercobra on 22:46, 1 March 2011. But since that has been a long time ago I think it's probably just me... but I can't rule out it being a Wikipedia problem. Any thoughts? EryZ (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

After receiving some feedback from people on Twitter that it is in fact rendering incorrectly I have just been bold and deleted that bit of code to render the page properly again. I don't know why it's doing that, so any help to fix the problem without having to delete the code would be appreciated. EryZ (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem was an unterminated table at Template:Area networks. Now fixed.-gadfium 07:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.123.246.147, 6 August 2011

Social impact 3rd paragraph last sentence

This is accomplished through software that filters domains and content so that they may not be easily accessed or obtained without elaborate circumvention.

Should be: This is accomplished through software that filters domains and content so that they may not be easily accessed or obtained without elaborate circumvention, such as a proxy server.

69.123.246.147 (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you feel this needs to be changed? I do not see the need to add in the example. Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

World Wide Web

The statement "the Web is one of the services communicated via the Internet" is vague. I don't know what that service is. People want to understand what the difference between the internet and the WWW is but there is no clear definition of that here.

Every journalist knows that there is no difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.45.193 (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be stated that the WWW is the http protocol, including HTML. If that is accurate, then that clarification would really help. Is there a RFC that defines what the World Wide Web is? I don't see one. Is there a list of RFCs that define the WWW?

173.55.37.192 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in when I created this. Sam Tomato (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The WWW is more than HTTP/HTML. I think this is fairly clear if you refer to the linked World Wide Web article. For good measure a summary of that, "It is a collection of interconnected documents and other resources, linked by hyperlinks and URLs." is already included after the sentence that confuses you. --Kvng (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 October 2011

THE INERNERT IS A SERIES OF TUBES! Forget2rembr (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Role of web in the field of Internetworking

The Web has played an important role in making this world a Global Village but it could not be possible without the field of Internetworking. Do you agree? Justify your opinion with solid reasons in favor of your opinion.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.21.94 (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed the backbone link in the intro to point to Internet_backbone instead of network backbone, it seems the context here is referring more to the former.Paladin656 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mis-capitilisation

Under Modern Uses the first word of the third sentence (mobile) isn't capitalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.233.222 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Kirstein

Can someone who is able to edit the article please redirect the Peter Kirstein link to the Peter T. Kirstein article, rather than leave it pointing to a Kirstein disambiguation page?

 Done - Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Overall phenomenon of the Internet's collectivism for accomplishing tasks

So I came across the Dog Poop Girl incident (which later caused me to remember the "Gone. Shedding Your Identity in the Digital Age" article on WIRED), and I noticed a phenomenon or two in these incidents. I read the Columbia Journalism Review article on Dog Poop Girl (about the power of Internet users to shame a woman and the revealing of all identity), and about the power of Internet users who uncovered every bit of info about Evan Ratliffe when he tried to disappear. In addition to the "power of collective Internet citizens to accomplish things", it also brings up the notion of Internet vigilantism and the notion of "intense data mining" by the collective force of Internet citizens. I noticed this phenomenon, but I couldn't find an article about it because this seems to be a more subtle notion. I think these topics should be addressed in one overall article on the whole phenomena with sections describing and documenting these events and discussing them. People on the Internet are able to accomplish things and find things more effectively. This is like crowdsourcing, but not this specific a subject. It's like the power of the collective conscience of the Internet and the activism and efforts that accumulate. What's a good term to use here?

And to explain better, here's an excerpt from the Wired article:

What had started as an exercise in escape quickly became a cross between a massively multiplayer online game and a reality show. A staggeringly large community arose spontaneously, splintered into organized groups, and set to work turning over every rock in Ratliff’s life. It topped out at 600 Twitter posts a day. The hunters knew the names of his cat sitter and his mechanic, his favorite authors, his childhood nicknames. They found every article he’d ever written; they found recent videos of him. They discovered and published every address he’d ever had in the US, from Atlanta to Hawaii, together with the full name and age of every member of his family.

They discovered almost every available piece of data about Ratliff, in fact, except his current location.

Here's an excerpt about the other topic from a Washington post article:

According to one blog that has covered the story, "within days, her identity and her past were revealed. Requests for information about her parents and relatives started popping up and people started to recognize her by the dog and the bag she was carrying," because her face was partially obscured by her hair.

Online discussion groups crackled with chatter about every shred of the woman's life that could be found, and with debate over whether the Internet mob had gone too far. The incident became national news in South Korea and even was discussed in Sunday sermons in Korean churches in the Washington area.

I think this phenomenon should be written about/discussed/analyzed/documented. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit: The articles: Internet activism, Internet vigilantism, Data mining, Collective intelligence, crowdsourcing, Human flesh search engine, etc. deal with different topics that are similar to the same concept. What should this article be called, or first, what should be in the article? The sociology of the Internet article doesn't quite address this phenomenon yet.

Edit2: See this comment as well (from the Cooks Source controversy): "Glenn Fleishman wrote that 'regardless of the provenance of the email, it was scary to watch the net awake as one.'" - M0rphzone (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Would the Sociology of the Internet article be a possible place for this information? Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably, but I'm not an expert on the subject, so this should probably be added by people who are familiar with the proper terms, etc. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So any thoughts or comments about this phenomenon? I think it should be mentioned in one of these articles. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Internet capitalization in intro??

"See also: Internet capitalization conventions" -- what has that got to do with anything -- it looks like spam! 12:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.60.18 (talk)

Internet is capitalized because it refers to a distinct entity. It's the name for the Internet. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood

This article should mention how Hollywood has influenced the internet. 67.175.103.146 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, Hollywood has destroyed the Internet claiming it's responsible for copyright infringement. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Early version to shutdown?

There was a story on NPR earlier today that said an early version of the internet that is still in use is going to shut down on this coming Sunday (July 1st). What was that called? I only caught part of the story. --RThompson82 (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Minitel, a very early (1978) videotex network in France, was shutdown on 30 June 2012. Over 30 years--not a bad run in our rapidly changing world of technology. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk)

France invented the Internet

The history of the internet began in France with their invention of Minitel, a computer connected communications system that ran through the telephone lines all over France. It was the first Internet. 71.98.133.88 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Minitel - like Ceefax, although there were also huge differences - provided some of the facilities that the World Wide Web currently provides. However, from this article, the characterising feature of the internet is that it is an interconnected series of computer networks, run by all kinds of organisations, that we, as members of the public, can actually join, and become an active part of in every sense, via our ISP and router. Minitel was a wide-scale client-server system on a single network - there was no internetworking. Later when other countries began to operate their own Minitel systems, each was an isolated system - users of Irish Minitel terminals, for example, could not access information on the French Minitel servers. Minitel was an example of a computer network, but not a computer internetwork or 'internet'.
You are incorrect. Minitel allowed communication between users, between hotels and clients, and between book sellers and buyers, etc. 71.98.133.88 (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional first-hand account of Internet origin

This looks to be particularly good first-hand source material that should be incorporate here and/or History of the Internet articles - http://techpresident.com/news/22670/where-did-internet-really-come TcomptonMA (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 September 2012

The word "who's" is incorrect and should be replaced with a comma and "whose" at the end of the following paragraph.

Research into packet switching started in the early 1960s and packet switched networks such as Mark I at NPL in the UK,[1] ARPANET, CYCLADES,[2][3] Merit Network,[4] Tymnet, and Telenet, were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s using a variety of protocols. The ARPANET in particular led to the development of protocols for internetworking, where multiple separate networks could be joined together into a network of networks thanks to the work of British scientist Donald Davies who's ground-breaking work ...

As in "Donald Davies, whose ground-breaking work ..."


82.35.118.186 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Celebrating 40 years of the net, by Mark Ward, Technology correspondent, BBC News, 29 October 2009
  2. ^ "A Technical History of CYCLADES", Technical Histories of the Internet & other Network Protocols, Computer Science Department, University of Texas Austin, 11 June 2002
  3. ^ "The Cyclades Experience: Results and Impacts", Zimmermann, H., Proc. IFIP'77 Congress, Toronto, August 1977, pp. 465–469
  4. ^ A Chronicle of Merit's Early History, John Mulcahy, 1989, Merit Network, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Social Impact

I'd like to add the following, if I could:

Though the internet has made information more readily available to people, it is difficult to believe that anything could be found online that could not be found somewhere in a library (including media and music). That's because it seems strange to think that authorities would not de facto or de jure wish to monitor all information to enhance policing. Given that authorities have more available technologically and otherwise than an everyday people, it's probably true that the internet is de facto highly patrolled (IP addresses secretly recorded, etc.). This is evident even in the most progressive attempts to use "social media" for liberation. Wikipedia, for instance, protects webpages from editing and records IP addresses. Webpages, too, cost money to maintain as first listed simple "www" addresses, making the internet, like the rest of services in the world, highly influenced by corporate and special group interests, moreso than by simple individuals without much power or influence. The result is that the internet, while seemingly outside the realm of government or authority control, is in fact much less free than many would like to think.

Some also worry that, rather than making the internet a place friendly to intellectual curiousity, creativity, and integrity, the internet has become a place of trivial pursuits and degeneration of personal character. This is evident in the ways in which people use strange acronyms, colloquialisms and broken sentences as language in "social media" sites, blogs, and chat sites to communicate idle concerns, rather than well-formed, well-conceived sentences to portray complex ideas and sentiments. It's also evident in pervasive anonymous bullying, harassment, and abuse people often complain about on these same "social media" sites. In this sense, some criticize the internet for creating a culture of insolent and idle people, rather than knowledgeable, creative, intelligent (and dare I say, civil) persons.

There are worries as well, that the predominance of internet use over actual social interaction creates societies of isolated people, ironically while being heavily invested in "social media" communication. 70.72.44.213 (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC) April 18, 2012

Do you have any citations for this material? --Kvng (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't seem like the right place to make these claims. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Fee-fi-fo-fum, someone's been hacking and editing my original talk post. Mine read much better. Remember, just because there are rules, that doesn't mean they must be followed always in writing. For instance, if I said: "Me, professor?," I could omit the comma between the "me" and "professor" because it's understood easily in such a short sentence, even if the actual rule is to place a comma in between. It's just usage. Really, look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The research study which concluded that "loneliness" correlates to internet usage was conducted more than a decade ago (in the late 90s) and references material from the late 80s. Can this statement either be removed or cited with better research? I read the article which was linked (from Boston University) and it did not seem at all relevant to today's internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.185.10 (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Philanthropy reads like an ad for Zidisha - including multiple links to their article ... Could/should someone tone it down?

Kuebel (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

internet is internationnel and network it a means tool of information and communication and antertainment instruction to do research .to make education studies easies .to chat have frindly talk addiction to get and become addict — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.146.1.128 (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggested edits for clarity

I would make the following edits if this page were not protected:

1) The phrase "both commissioned by the United States government to develop projects of its military agencies to build robust,..." is clunky. I like "both commissioned by American military agencies to build robust, ..."

 Not done Sentence no longer exists in article. -—Kvng 17:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

2) The sentence beginning "Most traditional communications media, such as telephone and television services, are reshaped or redefined using the technologies of the Internet,": the verb should be "are being reshaped or redefined."

 Done -—Kvng 17:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

3) The following sentence is poorly written-- this reads as if BBN established that VACs were legalized in the U.S., which is not the case: "Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN), the private contractors for ARPANET, set out to create a separate commercial version after establishing "value added carriers" was legalized in the U.S.[6]."

Looking at the source document, a rewrite is: "Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN), the private contractors for ARPANET, set out to create a separate commercial version after the Federal Communications Commission permitted the establishment of value-added carriers in the U.S. [6]." Rohan.maddamsetti (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++ Could someone make the change in the history section from "London University" to "University of London"? "London University" was the old name of UCL before 1836, a different, but constituent, institution. It isn't a major point but the current version is wrong. Thank you. --109.149.114.234 (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Institute of Computer Science does indeed reference University of London. -—Kvng 17:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Commercial role in the origin of the Internet

Hi Everybody! As an Internet user from the times of Gopher, WAIS, and Bulletin Boards, I found confusing the assertion: "The origins of the Internet reach back to research of the 1960s, commissioned by the United States government in collaboration with private commercial interests". I think it would be more accurate to say "...government and spurred by the scientific community and Academia". As far as I remember the commercial community (except for IBM and others interest in hardware), was extremely skeptical about the new "scientific" information exchange tool (yesterday's "geeks".) The creation of the WWW and of Gopher, later on, did not reduce the business community's disdain for the internet. Later, when Netscape appeared, some commercial interest showed-up; but was countered by many books and articles pleading for the non-commercialization of the Internet. Even Microsoft derided it and did not pay attention until Netscape had become 'the' web navigator (browser); but that's another history. Going too far back in search of originating ideas, can lead us to crediting the dreams of ancient geniuses and visionaries. It is the practical proposals that mark the real beginning of those visions. From this point of view, I cannot see a real role of business in the origins of the Internet.

(My apologies for possible violations) Alexandrod (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia article on ARPANET, and then go to a library and read some real books on Internet history (I've read nearly all of them, by the way) before further embarrassing yourself by displaying your abysmal ignorance in public. If you aren't familiar with the books on Internet history by Janet Abbate, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Katie Hafner, and Martin Campbell-Kelly, then you're way out of your league. ARPANET and Internet research was funded by the U.S. government, but was made possible by private contractors like BBN, computer manufacturers like Honeywell, communications contractors like AT&T, and academic think tanks like SRI. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Alexandrod that the present formulation is misleading, and your reply fails to address the issue. The misleading phrase is the 'private commercial interests' that motivated companies to help create the Internet: for those who haven't read the books you mention (myself included), this phrase suggests that companies wanted to create the Internet as a mass medium for communication between businesses and their customers, something that only started to happen around 1993. Rp (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

it is very important for you to search on google for all your work with its never ending wisdon written by the unknown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.224.173.13 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the "private commercial interests" phrase. Additional improvement is welcomed. This portion of the lead is unreferenced and not well supported by the History section of the article. -—Kvng 17:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested fix in History

Small edit in History section:

Modification to correct confusing year reference:

"Commercial internet service providers (ISPs) began to emerge in the late 1980s and 1990s."

change to

Commercial internet service providers (ISPs) began to emerge in the late 1980s into the 1990s. Kevin.strong (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mis-capitilisation

Under Modern Uses the first word of the third sentence (mobile) isn't capitalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.233.222 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 15 February 2012‎

Delete wordiness

"The origins of the Internet reach back to research of the 1960s," should be changed to "The Internet originated in research of the 1960s," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.147.170 (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done -—Kvng 02:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Internet Penetration by Country

I believe the information on this graph could be useful for the page: http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/Portal/ShowImage.html?..//MediaLibrary//HighResImage//image0010.png Would someone make a new version of the graph just for this Wikipedia page? The info should be added in the 'Users' section of the article, saying: According to Euromonitor, by 2020 43.7% of the world's population will be users of the Internet. Splitting by country, in 2011 Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands had the highest internet penetration by the number of users, with more than 90% of the population with access. And then either link to the source or post the new graph. Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WWW

It is important to make the distinction between the Internet and the World Wide Web clear. At the moment, this long article does not do so. As far as I can see, it only 1) warns "not to be confused with" and much later says that the WWW (later shortened with-out explanation to "the Web" - which is not clear to every-one as being the same as the WWW) is a part of the Internet. Kdammers (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014

115.249.139.203 (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

C++ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.216.67 (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Videogames

I think it should be mentioned that games are changing because of the internet too, Thoughts? -DangerousJXD (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Obamanet ... (or ObamaNet)

A new term is coined in the Wall Street Journal! 

Headline-1: From Internet to Obamanet

QUOTE: "Critics of President Obama’s “net neutrality” plan call it ObamaCare for the Internet. That’s unfair to ObamaCare. Both ObamaCare and “Obamanet” submit huge industries to complex regulations. Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them. But at least ObamaCare claimed it would solve long-standing problems. Obamanet promises to fix an Internet that isn’t broken." -- AstroU (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. New NEWS today, for future editing 

Headline-2: FCC Chair Refuses to Testify before Congress ahead of Net Neutrality Vote

QUOTE: "Wheeler’s refusal to go before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday comes on the eve of the FCC’s vote on new Internet regulations pertaining to net neutrality." -- AstroU (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for your consideration. 

Headline-3: Like Obamacare? You Will Love ObamaNet

QUOTE: "Net neutrality? Let’s call it net brutality." -- AstroU (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: The handle, Obamanet, is catchy.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.218.245.31 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2015‎

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please don't just copy the entire text of the Internet page over into the talk page! That messes up the talk page's formatting, and the only result will be an editor removing your request. Instead, state the specific thing you want changed, along the lines of "Where it says 'foo foo foo', change it to 'bar bar bar', for this reason: XYZ" — Narsil (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2015

175.31.186.159 (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

inaccurate censorship graphic

hi all,

just thought i'd point out that the current graphic shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_Censorship_and_Surveillance_World_Map.svg is inaccurate. i thought it was a little bit weird that the graphic would put, say, china, the US, and saudi arabia all on the same levels of censorship ... so i followed the citation link. it links to the open net initiative and shows a vastly different picture than the one on the page: http://map.opennet.net/filtering-pol.html. "internet censorship and surveillance world map" doesn't actually even appear to be one of ONI's categories -- they have "political", "social", "conflict/security", and "internet tools". just thought i should point out that this page in its current form is presenting what seems to me to be misleading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.247.32.162 (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The map summarizes the Wikipedia article Internet censorship and surveillance by country. I beleive that the summary in the map accurately summarizes the article. See that article for the details about how the summary is currently done. The OpenNet Initiative is one of the two main sources used in that article. The other is Reporters Without Borders' Enemies list. There are fairly recent discussions about possible changes to the article and the map that, if done, would make a clearer distinction between censorship and surveillance. Please join in. The discussions can be found at:
--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

History of the Internet

On October 14, 2011, a modification was done to the history of the Internet classified as "Haircut", but all references to the WorldWideWeb was removed. This was a very important part of the history of the Internet. Plus, the section discussed how the Internet gained a public face only during the 90s, which was also a very good point. Can these two points be brought back to the history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3A57:ADC0:34E9:8AE7:EC7A:5EC8 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

An interesting anecdote about tthe first physical (hardware) layer connection of Australia with the U.S. might be apropos here. I personally worked at a company (WLBR) in LA which collected (buffered) email and INN files on 2 magtapes which were handcarried by a 747 TWA pilot on his semi-weekly flights between LA and Sydney. This was the earliest connection of Australia to an ARPANET gateway for news and email service. It illustrates the old adage "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with magnetic media barreling down a highway at 70mph."

--2600:1010:B04B:EB58:0:3E:96E9:3201 (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

See also sneakernet. Is there a source that describes your claim, because that'd be an interesting addition to this article (or sneakernet). Mindmatrix 01:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Modern Internet

The opening paragraph says that the creation of the web marks the beginning of the 'modern internet' I would say that this is a bit of a misnomer, as there really is no 'modern internet' the web is not synonymous with the Internet, and is just an application which runs on its infrastructure. It may be the the most commonly used application, but it is not the Internet itself. The modern, and only, Internet began with the rollout of TCP/IP on January 1st 1983, thus standardizing a method of inter-network communication that basically makes the Internet happen. Also to say that ARPANET evolved out of efforts in Britain and France isn't entirely accurate either. Both countries had their own projects going on, but work on communication protocols and packet switching concepts was already happing in the US at that same time as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.156.190 (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that packet switching work was already in progress in the US and that passage needs to be better balanced, but the term "modern internet" seems fine to me. The Internet was just one of many computer networks prior to 1990 and was essentially an obscure academic toy. Many people back then still believed the train wreck known as OSI represented the future of telecommunications. It was the rise of the World Wide Web which captured the popular imagination of computer users around the world and created the contemporary "one network to rule them all" situation where virtually all other networking technologies have withered away or were subsumed under the TCP/IP umbrella. Yes, I am making a literary allusion. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess it isn't really a big deal if it is worded this way. I am just saying that while the Web popularized the Internet, it did not create the Internet. The Internet does not need the web to exist or to work, but it does make the Internet much easier and more accessible to the average person. From a technological standpoint packet switching and TCP/IP are basically the Internet, but from a public usefulness standpoint you could argue that the web does too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono85 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

World control

Will it fly? Probably not. 

Headline-1: Kerry: Internet 'Needs Rules to Be Able to Flourish and Work Properly'

QUOTE: "Calls for more international Internet laws. 2:15 PM, MAY 18, 2015 • BY DANIEL HALPER" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. New NEWS today, for future editing

The headline seems misleading. Kerry seemed to be saying that countries need rules (international laws) and some of those rules would apply to countries use of and behavior on the Internet. So, it is rules for countries and not rules for the Internet and certainly not "World control" of the Internet. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Internet/Archive_5&oldid=1231296541"