Talk:List of countries by number of Internet users/Archive 1

New column

Maybe someone who adds a new column with the % of connected users in those countries?

I mean, Mexico has 22 M internet users and Spain 18 M... in absolute terms, so we can think: oh, Mexico is more connected than Spain! Wrong. If you see the percentage, you'll see Mexico (105 M inhabitants) has only a 20% of internet users, whereas Spain (45 M and 20M internet users in 2007) has a near 44% of internet users.

Dear anonymous stranger, I have now added a coloumn like this. Next time you might contribute by doing it yourself, as all the needed population data are available on Wikipedia. Bosse Klykken (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EU number 1?

Why is the EU number 1? The title of the article is "list of COUNTRIES." I'm pretty sure the EU isn't a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.84.30 (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, I'm gonna modify this to have something similar to List of countries by population. 16@r (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is out of date - see http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2212086/chinese-become-internet - --Dj789 (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major frustration here. what defines a user? Is it someone that uses the Internet daily ? Or someone who uses it monthly, or annually ? The term needs a definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.22.46 (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus

Data on Belarus Internet access must be double-checked. I doubt that 56.3 % of population in Belarus have access to the Internet. Dstary (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A source better than CIA Fact Book

World Internet Stats - Frequently updated stats site
- Updated! Mario1987 12:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is much better now Sonny00 (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal is on the list twice

Please remove whichever entry is wrong. Willy turner (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And so is Lebanon

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 12:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia dscrepancy

The table and the color map disagree violently with regard to the internet penetration in Saudi Arabia.131.225.55.98 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now corrected both Saudi-Arabia and Bosnia in the map, both of them were apparently very wrong. -GabaG (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EU?

Why's the EU listed here? It's 27 different countries and last I checked, this article is titled List of countries by number of internet users.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea users

Wait. There is only 3 Internet users in North Korea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.105.216.111 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seems like vandalism and the references cited don't have data for North Korea so I am going to change it.Eiad77 (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland islands (malvinas)

Every human being in the falkland islands uses the internet? What source exactly says that? --189.216.156.137 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are sources being mixed?

Information from Internet World Stats is used for almost all of the countries. Two exceptions appear to be China and Mexico. I am not sure why there are separate sources for China and Mexico, since Internet World Stats has data for these two countries. Wouldn't it be better to use one source for this information? Otherwise, the door is opened to using a vast array or sources which all use vastly different methodologies. Furthermore, there is a lot of conflicting information out there regarding, for example, the number of internet users in China. Using the Internet World Stats data would solve this problem. Dagojr (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

india was just recently changed from what internet world stats had, I think we should keep to a single source or at the least, cite the changes. until a citation for new numbers appears, I'm reverting the change. --71.191.173.80 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually I'm going to wait to see if he puts a citation first, as GangadharD is doing the changes right now. --71.191.173.80 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source reliability ?

InternetWorldStats.com does not appear to me as a reliable source since it just published numbers without any way to access them or even to access the methodology to compute the number. Note that the organisation hidden behind the website is a marketing agency with no specific experience (IMHK) nor known expertise on global statistics except their "InternetWorldStats.com" site. It appears to be that this site is used by many people as a reference but could anyone provide clues on its reliability ? If not I suggest to use other numbers and sources. G.Dupont (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems that the data is good for 2008, not 2010. Someone should change those dates 09:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.185.0 (talk)

Yes, and the source is incorrect, it is NOT from the ITU. free statistics are available here (http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/) from the ITU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.106.157.26 (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users in Palestine and other countries

There are just over 300 users in Palestine?I guess I know most of them!there are over 4 major companies that provide access to the internet in Palestine just for 300 users! Even in other countries the numbers don't make any sense!

and in the title it says (thousands)..so there are 300000 users in Palestine?!maybe but that would mean there are 1900000000000 users in China-more that there are people! The list needs serious work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexmlo (talk • contribs) 14:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions by User:Kkm010

User:Kkm010 continues to revert this article, stating in the edit summary that I'm "juggling with the figures" and that I've failed to provide a relevant source to back up the data.

The number of Internet users is derived from this list compiled by the International Telecommunication Union showing the number of Internet users as a percentage of the population in 2010 (which is properly referenced in the article). The absolute numbers for each country are calculated using country population data from the US Census Bureau International Data Base (also properly referenced in the article).

The International Telecommunication Union is an authoritative and reliable source. The previous source for this article, "Internet World Stats", is not a reliable source and has a narrower coverage of countries. I will consult with a third party if you continue to revert the article. Pristino (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The figure that you have put in China and India, number of users are much higher. China has close to 500 million and India has over 100 million users. While this data shows too low, secondly India has actually became third largest number of internet users.--Kkm010* ^{۩ ۞} 11:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the source says otherwise. The ITU is probably the most authoritative source on this matter. Pristino (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iran user numbers

The Iran's users number is decleared as 10 million users ! while I know only in our city (Tehran) there are about 8.5 million internet users.second all of the reliable sources say otherwise, please look at : http://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm http://www.internetworldstats.com/middle.htm http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/rank.php 1 The first most reliable source delcraes iran users to be 36,5 million. dont you feel any difference between 10 and 36,5 million ?!!! Thus I corrected the number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utero-1993 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The UN's International Telecommunication Union is an authoritative and reliable source; much better than "www.internetworldstats.com". Please don't revert back the figure. Pristino (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move page (move will be performed by an administrator shortly) Themeparkgc Talk 01:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet users by country → List of countries by number of Internet users – This is not a “list of Internet users”, this is a “list of countries” [sorted by the number of Internet users]. Cf. List of countries by number of broadband Internet users. Mormegil (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's just better language. Walrasiad (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname -- but to Internet user statistics by country. The fact that this is a list is not a vital part of the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not a list? WP:LISTNAME? Cf. also Lists of countries and territories. --Mormegil (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New/updated country table

At 06:54, 14 April 2012‎ 39.215.161.70 made a large number of changes to the figures in the country table/list without entering an edit summary. Many of the changes didn't seem to make sense and a number no longer matched the 2010 figures from the ITU. Rather than try to sort this out or simply revert the changes, I decided to start over and recreate the table using 2010 Internet users percentage data from the ITU and 2010 country population data from the U.S. Census Bureau or in a few cases from Wikipedia. The table is slightly reformatted: there are two Rank columns now, one for the percentage and the other for the number of Internet users; the country name is in the far left column; and there is a column for notes. The new/updated table was added a few minutes ago. Hopefully the references make it clearer how the table was created and what sources were used. At the least there are no longer any dead links. The next step is to redo the two world maps so that they are based on the same ITU and population data rather than data from Internet Worldstats and they are .svg rather than .png based. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you went through all that trouble. The table was perfectly fine before 39.215.161.70's vandalization. I've fixed the dead link now. Pristino (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all that trouble because the sources for the previous table even before 39.215.161.70's vandalization were not clear. They seemed to be based on what was a deadlink. I wanted to get rid of the deadlink, which I did. The deadlink ref didn't have a date, but it did show that it was accessed on 31 September 2011. The new table from the ITU that I used and that was used to replace the deadlink in the current article doesn't have a date that is more specific than 2010, but it comes from a section of the ITU web site that was updated in December 2011. The name on the deadlink ref doesn't match the name of the new table from the ITU. So it was not and still is not clear how the old figures from September 2011 were related to the newer valid link and data from the ITU. I thought my changes with more explicit references and the notes column made things clearer and I knew for sure that all of the figures matched the figures from the new ITU table. Both the old current reference [9] on the Internet users column seems to imply that the figures in that column come from the U.S. Census Bureau and the UN, when in fact the figures are calculated using data from the ITU and the census data. I think my changes made that clearer. I also thought having two rank columns and moving them next to the data columns that they applied to made it clearer what was being ranked and it was useful to rank both the percentage and the number of Internet users rather than just the number of Internet users. Did my changes do any harm? Was there something wrong with them? Why did you revert? I'm inclined to restore my changes, but I'll wait a day or two first to see what responses we get here from you or others? -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a country by country caparison of my version of the table with the previous version from before 39.215.161.70's vandalization, but a spot check shows that most entries are identical. There are two differences when a country's population wasn't available from the U.S. Census Bureau database since I used figures from Wikipedia and the previous version used figures from the UN. I'd be happy to switch to figures from the UN for the missing census data cases or even for all of the countries. I have a spreadsheet that generates the table, so changes of this sort are fairly easy. My version does include roughly 15 countries or regions that aren't in the previous version. These "extra" countries are in the ITU table, but with data prior to 2010. In such cases I gave the actual year in the notes column. My version rounds to the nearest whole percentage for values 10% or larger and to one decimal place for values less than 10%. I did this mostly because I think fewer decimal places makes the table easier to read, but also because I think using percentage values with two decimal places (ten thousandths) implies more accuracy than these estimates and projections really have. But if it would be better to include more decimal places the spreadsheet makes this easy to do. Neither version rounds the number of Internet users, but I worry that these figures too imply more accuracy then really exists. For example, do we really think that there were exactly 456,238,464 Internet users in China in 2010? I think we should consider rounding the number of Internet users to the nearest 1,000 or perhaps to the nearest 100 for countries with fewer than 10,000 people. And my version is initially ordered by the percentage ranking, while the previous version is initially ordered by the number of Internet users. I did this because the table is really driven by the percentage values from the ITU. Readers can sort the table by any column, so they can view the data in any number of ways. I don't feel strongly about this and the initial ranking displayed could easily be changed. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another difference is that the previous version flags 14 sub-regions or territories that aren't countries in italics and doesn't include them in the ranking. My version doesn't flag sub-regions or territories differently and includes all of the entries in the table in the rankings. This could be changed in my version without much effort, if desired. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

small browsers

On small-width browsers the tables are overlapping. Can someone move them so the text table and graphical tables are not next to each other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.218.145 (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I made a change that avoids the overlap when using narrow browser windows. The info boxes, graphs, and maps are still next to the country table, but when the window is too narrow to display both side by side, the browsers should add a scroll bar so you can window to the right and left to see everything. At least this seems to work for Firefox, Google Chrome, and Safari. Let us know, if it doesn't work well for some other browsers. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"internetworldstats" as source

Please don't add data from "internetworldstats"! Their data is complete crap. They don't give reliable sources and have huge errors in their database. One example is their page for Iran. They say the Iranian population increased by 10 million people from 2009 to 2010, and they state their source for some of the data is "ITU" without saying of which publication of ITU it is. But the ITU data used in the WP article clearly says something different and is mostly based on data from the Statistical Center of Iran. So the ITU data should be reliable, whereas "internetworldstats" is a site full of spam, obviously based on some kids playing with their keyboard. --92.73.29.89 (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Please read this before updating the figures in the article:

India

What's the issue with Indian numbers? It gets changed regularly (to put it over Japan) but I don't see any changes in the references. StasMalyga (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I wasn't careful enough to see the table is for 2010, makes sense. People who change it, please keep in mind that too. If one country has the data for 2012 and others for 2010 it loses sense, it's a huge leap and renders the table useless for comparison. Cheers. StasMalyga (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The India numbers are completely doctored now. Penetration at 25% when source says 15,10%. I would correct it but I don't know where the population number comes from.

90.184.76.31 (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of December 2014 the official estimate from the official body in India is 24 % (302m/1270m) : http://trak.in/tags/business/2014/11/19/india-300m-internet-users-2014/. --Loup Solitaire 81 (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please care to provide the source of recent update in India. 700 millions users represents nearly three fourths of India's senior teens and adults which I deem to be highly unlikely. Regards Aman.kumar.goel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New page/Update table

User 95.178.143.23 has added a new link to official figures of ITU for 2011:

Here is official ITU link to make new wiki page Internet users in world in 2011.: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/icteye/Reporting/ShowReportFrame.aspx?ReportName=/WTI/InformationTechnologyPublic&ReportFormat=HTML4.0&RP_intYear=2011&RP_intLanguageID=1&RP_bitLiveData=False

Suggestions on how to proceed? Anir1uph (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have same page (table)like this for 2010, but with new numbers. Can be written list of internet users by country in 2011. And have links on both pages that peoples can on easy way check it, precise not searching again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.143.23 (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to keep the 2010 figures and add the 2011 figures as two new columns. That way this article will start to give a little bit of the history of changes in the number of Internet users. Because the ITU data only gives a percentage of the population, one needs to get population figures for 2011 for each country and do a little math to come up with the count of the number of users. I have a spreadsheet that does that for 2010 and would be willing to add 2011, unless someone else really wants to do this. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011 ITU data already mentions both total users and users as percentage of the population. It even adds a column for number of users per 100 inhabitants. I support adding 2 new columns to this page itself. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out. The ITU report talks about "Percentage of individuals using the Internet" and "Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions: Total and Per 100 inhabitants". Those are different things. This article is about the former and not the later. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, so the populations figures would be needed. Anir1uph (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rank-order column (1,2,3) should be static and separate

See Help:Sorting#Initial alphabetical sort versus initial sort by rank order. See the section about adding a separate, static rank column (1,2,3) next to a table. This makes the table easier to update. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is the goal to have a table that is easy to update or is it to have a table that has useful information? I think it is the later rather than the former. Also, because this table should be updated pretty much all at once from a single common source, maintaining a rank column isn't really very hard to do. It would seem that the guidance about rank order applies more to cases where the rows in the table are updated independently from each other from several sources at different times. That isn't the case here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be interesting if there was software than allowed us to just put hashtags or something in the rank column, which display as numbers. That's be easy and useful. CMD (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See: Help:Sorting#Adding a separate, static rank column (1,2,3) next to a table. You can have easier rank ordering if you use a static rank order column. See that section about adding a separate, static rank column (1,2,3) next to a table. This makes the table easier to maintain and update, all while maintaining the table in rank order. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have any editors complained that the table in this article is difficult to maintain because of the rank order column? For the reasons I stated above, I haven't found it hard.

It seems that there are two or perhaps three questions here. All of them have to do with ease of updating.

How should the table be sorted initially? In rank order as it is now or alphabetically be country?
Should the table continue to include a dynamic rank order column or should the column be removed?
Should the current dynamic rank order column be replaced by a static rank order column?

For myself:

I like the current initial sort by rank order. If someone wants the table in alpha order by country, it is easy enough for them to sort the table in that or other ways.
I think rank order adds useful information to the table and so I'd like to keep it.
I like dynamic rank order since if I sort the table into alpha order by country I still know the rank of a given country without having to sort the table into a different order. I don't know what good a static rank order is when the table is sorted into alpha order by country. Right now the rank order only applies to "official" countries and omits sub-regions and disputed territories even though there are rows in the table for those regions. Static rank order will not work for that.

I think we should be most concerned about how to make the table useful for readers and we should be less interested in how easy it is for editors to maintain the table.

--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on how many people you have updating the table. I think static rank order is better for this table. It is much easier when updating a long table like this. I don't think people are that concerned about the combination of "official" countries, sub-regions, and disputed territories. Also, there are 2 data columns in this table. So static rank order is useful there too. Otherwise, only one of the data columns can be ranked. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New data comes out from the ITU once a year, so this table will generally be updated once a year by a single person. Given the data that is provided by the ITU, country population data from another source and some math is required to generate the second column. I do that using a spreadsheet. I generate the rank order using the same spreadsheet. I generate the wiki markup using the spreadsheet too and copy and paste it into the article. Using the spreadsheet is a lot easier and less error prone than updating the table by hand. And it makes the issue of static vs. dynamic rank order columns irrelevant. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many people, myself included, would be more interested in ranking the percentage of the population using the internet rather than just the total number in a country, sub-region, or territory. Using a separate rank column allows this to happen. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a second column for ranking the percentage would provide this information and would allow someone to compare the number and percentage ranks without having to resort and remember one or the other rank. I think that that is a better solution to this particular issue. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can your spreadsheet add that second column of ranks? The more complicated this becomes the less likely this list is to be maintained once you stop editing it.

As for finding both ranks, a separate rank column makes this easy. If someone wants to compare all they have to do is click the sort button for the column of interest. We need to discourage multiple rank columns because it makes more and more lists dependent on one person's editing. Many list pages have tables with 3 or more data columns.

I use various quicker methods to create lists. I usually put the list in the order of the source. If the source is in alphabetical order I put the list here in alphabetical order. It the source is in rank order I put the list here in rank order. I try to use the simplest method, knowing that I am not likely to maintain a list longterm. I also try to explain my tools and methods on the talk page, so that future editors can use them. Or I create a user subpage with the info, or some other page elsewhere, and I link to it. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with using data from internetworldstats

http://www.internetworldstats.com/list2.htm the problem with this site is that they heavily influenced by CIA worldfact data or other outdated sources, they look at the internet penetration by various data of the goverments and so on to use these percentage with cia population data for countries. But the cia population data and other data they use is often outdated. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html?countryName=Russia&countryCode=rs&regionCode=cas&rank=9#rs

Russia is a good example they say it has only 138 million people its obviously wrong as russias population is 143 million people even cia updated it but its still not 100% accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population I know that cia used to count russias population at 138 million people back then but now it changed since russians make more children now, and more immigrants come to the country. They are also other countries which are heavily over estimated by them like turkey which only has a population of 74 million people but the internetworldstats counts still 78 million. The wikipedia article who collects data from official governments should be the only one being used. It would be better using their percentage of internet penetration only with the data of population the wikipedia article provides instead of their data.--Venajaguardian (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

internetworldstats is a complete SPAM SITE! It is absolutely ridiculous that this site is used here. But this is how Wikipedia works: just google and use ANY site as source no matter what it is and everything is fine. --88.78.126.154 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]