Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/History of the World Wide Web

History of the World Wide Web

Nominated on 11:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC); needs 15 votes by March 31.

New and very short needing attention that could be expanded to featured article status.

Support:

1. Wackymacs 11:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Webster100 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Bratislav Slović 14:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
4. CGMullin 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
5. KWH 22:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
6. The Tom 23:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Avala 16:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
8. CrnaGora | Talk 07:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Roman Dictator Gaius Julius Caesar IV (aka Julius Caesar) 07:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Ottoman Sultan | Talk 07:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
11. xSTRIKEx6864 05:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
12. --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 03:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Davodd 21:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
14. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Isn't this just a sub-set of the much larger and better-developed History of the Internet article? Why would it be separate? — RJH 02:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Because the WWW and the Internet are completely different things, they have different histories because they are different subjects!— Wackymacs 21:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• So the WWW would still exist if the Internet disappeared? I'd be tempted to say WWW is a subset of the Internet. At least thus far. :) — RJH 16:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Look, I'm not arguing about this - I wish people would learn something for once - the WWW is a service that runs on the Internet, just like email, and as I said before it has a completely different history than the Internet, albeit the Internet is involved in WWW history. — Wackymacs 16:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• LOL. Good luck. — RJH 15:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Naive searchers might look EITHER for the History of the Internet or the History of the World Wide Web and at each of those places, I think they should find an article explaining that one is not the other, and what the differences are. Best way to present that explanation is to do at least two linked articles.CGMullin 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because there's more to be said about the History of the WWW. The WWW is indeed only the last ~15 years of the Internet saga. Splitting the article can help each retain a focused scope. KWH 22:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes that would make a certain amount of sense. :) — RJH

I think the confusion is that the Internet is a technology conduit - like radio frequency broadcasting. Various and separate technologies and industries are dependent upon it (IP Telephony, Telnet, e-mail, the WWW, Usenet, etc) just like various technologies/industries are dependent upon radio broadcast technology (AM/FM radio, television, WiFi, WiMAX, Teletext, communications satellites, etc.) Davodd 21:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Being from the UNIX side of the house, I have a different understanding of the word "service". To me the WWW has always incorporated a number of different services, and shares a number of commonalities with the internet. But that's just my perspective. — RJH 18:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

---