Talk:Usenet

Excessive Formality?

The article makes sense if you already know what Usenet is. Sometimes words have different meanings in different contexts, and it seems like here people don't use the right word because it means something else in another context. (??) For example perhaps; "forums":

"Users read and post messages (called articles or posts, and collectively termed news) to one or more categories, known as newsgroups."

To me, "categories" here has zero explanatory power. How about: "...to one or more forums, known as newsgroups." Or "areas of interest?" While "categories" is 100% not false, it does so be being excessively vague, almost meaningless in this context. (Being 100% not false, is rarely a compliment.)

Consider the rest of the article similarly. Wiki's goal is communication and explanation, not "100% not false."   Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without — Confucius,— or Perfect is the enemy of good. Excessive formality seems to be hindering clarity.   Usenet was/is used by ordinary people using loose, ordinary language, lace on a pig seems counter to Wiki's goal: communication. Engineers should not explain ditch-digging.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:E454:D78D:E92F:E1E6 (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Not all newsgroups were forums. Jibal (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I used to describe a newsgroup as a channel, like a television channel: many channels share the same medium (the ether, the network) but are distinct. —Tamfang (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Replaced my addition/correction

The article says; "reading the messages requires not a mail or web client, but a news client." That was true decades ago. I corrected by adding:

However, it is now possible to read and participate in Usenet newsgroups to a large degree using ordinary Internet browsers since most newsgroups are now slightly modified for copying to specialized Web sites.

That was deleted without discussion by a bot that seemingly thought I was using search engines as a source, rather than as a tool. I chose a dynamic tool rather than a source in part because of the fading and dynamic nature of Usenet. For example, while their were once tens of thousands of newsgroups, and those lists were published, many if not most of those newsgroups are inactive. Further, they applied to Usenet, not all the internet adaptations.

I replaced my addition without groups.google and my planned sci.physics.narkive.com reading examples to avoid confusing Twinkle bot, but explanation has been degraded. I hope somebody can figure out how to do that.

Part of my goal was to tell the Usenet newbie (Wikipedia's "general user",) that: "NO! You CAN read Usenet without learning or installing new client software! It's NOT DEAD and defunct!" ...which is also what the tone of the article says.

Frankly I see such deletions of other's helpful efforts, —with zero attempt to correct nor to communicate, nor improve the article — as vandalism, not by intent, but by moral negligence and abuse of authority. What possible excuse is there for that, to spit on me like that? That it's legal!? Please note that Guidelines say challenged, then deleted, not just ZAP!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:E454:D78D:E92F:E1E6 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Reinstating edits after undo

I just spent hours trying to improve the article, and it was ruined by another inconsiderate bot-powered speedy-user's Undo when I tried to update a now-invalid article. I dont know how long it will take to re-assemble the remaining parts, so please don't undo my undo, which I had to do to post my fixes and additions. IOW, how about some time? I may need to sleep and etc...

You might consider creating a temporary sandbox page for preparing larger edits. That way, the intermediate edits don't pollute the article history and don't invite actions from others. Rp (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, I need to change my evil ways. Odd, I just got the second "Conflict" message of my life adding here. I'll add it below, I need to sleep now.

OK, I re-added what I could from the melted "Edit conflict: Usenet" page: "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it," and seemingly one of the thoughtless reverts had disappeared, so I couldn't undo it. As in "Buggy Wikipedia." Still a work in progress, This could take a few days, please do not delete. Thoughtful manual improvements or suggestions are welcomed in the mean time. I notice there are wiki-bots for WARNING VANDALS, what's the deal, Brownie Points for Twinkle-bot hatcheting good-faith users 500 handmade bytes, 11 minutes after we post? Or as Twinkle users brag; "This user reverts...in the blink of an eye with Twinkle!" Like notches in a gun handle? There's something seriously WRONG here. All over Wiki Guidelines etc, it's implicit, assumed, over and over that smash-facing is not done without at least discussion. As in good faith. Anybody want quotes?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cfce:1ee0:e454:d78d:e92f:e1e6 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts - using four tilde's - otherwise when there is a thread it's very hard to tell who is saying what, in what order. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The edits are not vandalism, but there has been a tendency to introduce original research and personal analysis. There should be secondary reliable sources that support the material added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, people. I particularly appreciate the links and specific accusations. Anything less is logically, "You're yukky. Fix that." Looking at the defs in your link, I'm not aware of any OR. I mostly need to re-add my other Refs to other places. If anything bad, I've notice some of my info is elsewhere in the article. If anybody sees OR, tell me where so I/we can fix. Other places I reword what others say for clarity or in another context.

"Not vandalism?" I wasn't going to hit that, but since you brought it up, I thought that vandalism was rude, disrespectful inconsiderate, or other disruptive edits that SLAP wikipedia philosophy and guidelines or the good faith efforts of other users in the face. Or acting like a bully. What else is in the definition of vandalism?

I've freely admitted above that some of my edits were incomplete with technical problems, as above. But let's pretend I was finished, and a month old. That doesn't merit an Undo revert. Did you know that Wiki has UNDO guidelines, see below, and wiki knows they are nasty? Is anybody here making the claim that any of the reverts against me were NOT rude and utterly against Wiki philosophy and guidelines? (See below wiki's "When to revert" quotes.) If so, please be specific so we can help the article, & help me.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)e1e6

Swift reverts of bad edits are good things. Left too long, other editors make good edits on top of poor ones like your unsourced revisions, and it's harder to untangle. You left the article in the poor state for almost a half an hour before I reverted. There's no way of knowing that you intended to eventually come back and work on it further, and besides, that's the role of the sandbox. If you intend to edit like this, please register as a user so you have your own sandbox to edit and prepare revisions in.

If you absolutely must edit as you proposed to do, please use the templates {{Under construction}} or {{In use}} to signal your intent; don't make us guess. Note that {{Under construction}} is when the article is actively undergoing editing; {{In use}} is for longer-term, where longer term means up to two hours.

I wouldn't have reverted you at only twenty-four minutes if you'd used {{In use}}. TJRC (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You claim I made a bad edit, the logical equiv of "Yukky I dont like it!" And I'm pretty sure you that's your best. Unsourced revisions are harder to "untangle?" Oh really? You mean harder to spit on wiki philosophy and users with an Undo button, don't you?

You don't seem to get it. According to Wiki guidelines, philosophy, and tone, I did absolutely NOTHING worthy of your Undo revert, temporary or not. Why don't you get with the program? It is your habitual inconsiderate, rude, bullying behavior that is out of line. 2¢ says taking away your overpowered, over-used Cop-Bot would cure that. You broke so many Revert rules with your arrogant rudeness, it's not funny. Here are some of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting

Shortcuts WP:RV WP:REV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting#When_to_revert When to revert WP:QUO

Revert only when necessary Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus.

Explain reverts Shortcut WP:REVEXP Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.

A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.

Frankly, I think the idea of using a cop-bot to seek out technical errors, rather than the Article's natural authors and contributors is a cruel, destructive joke, and in need of severe regulation.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:E454:D78D:E92F:E1E6 (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)E1E6

You didn't give any sources. I can't reword it to make up sources you didn't give. If you weren't an IPB6 addresss, I would have left you a message on your talk page, but I don't bother for IPV6 edits, since they vary too frequently.

Anyway, stop making edits without sourcing and you'll be fine. TJRC (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The first Redo I looked at has 2 source links. But that's irrelevant, isn't it? Why are you so hung up on sources? Because even Cop-Bot sees them? Did you know that most info in the article is unsourced, and that an unsourced addition can greatly improve an article?

OK, consider this; if you shouldn't Undo, and you don't want to attempt communication, and you can't improve the article, what's the next logical step? Punch the wall? I think it's; to happily go away.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)E1E6

Merger proposal: Merge Usenet newsgroup into Usenet

I propose merging the Usenet and Usenet newsgroup articles, with the merged article being named Usenet. Both articles cover many of the same topics, although sometimes using different language and sources. This undesirable duplication is inevitable: Usenet is made up of the Usenet newsgroups; Usenet does not exist independently of its newsgroups.—Finell 20:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• support Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• support for the reasons given - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Length of the Article

The article is quite long. Perhaps the history should be moved into a separate article aka History of Usenet or something? 2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The article is longish but hasn't gone over 100 kB which would justify splitting per WP:SIZERULE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

The article has WP:NPOV problems, insinuating that Usenet is infested with child porn. In reality, Usenet is not a friendly medium for child porn.

All mainstream Usenet providers are censored against it. Things have changed since 2008.

My internet provider also dropped its Usenet server. Not because of child porn, but because almost nobody was using it. So the narrative is so misleading.

I explained the reasons why I believe this, I asked nicely for sources, but that was reverted. So I decided to use the bigger hammer of putting a {{POV}} label upon the article. This way it is manifestly about the article and its 11 years of newspapers silence which get glossed over.

Now the article is lying by omission.

Even when a rogue Usenet provider claims to be wholly uncensored, I don't know in how far that is a realistic claim, or the provider is just a front for the law enforcement. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to challenge this claim. You say that the article 'insinuat[es] that usenet is infested with child porn.' I challenge you to show that this is how it is presented, and that it constitutes an NPOV problem. The article is 5,293 words of prose text. Of these, 66 words directly discuss the topic of child pornography specific to Usenet. Interestingly, none of those words actually directly suggest or insinuate that usenet is/was infested with child porn, only that usenet restrictions were a part of the response to Cuomo's campaign. As the rest of the article makes clear, usenet usage has plummetted over the decades, which is why there is almost no coverage in the last decade-plus - in short, nobody gives a shit about it any more. There's no suggestion or insinuation that usenet is today infested with child porn, only that there may have been child porn within it, and with no quantification that could be used to characterize the prose as claiming it was "infested", way back in 2008.

With barely more than 1% of the article specifically related to what you claim, tagging the entire article as NPOV beggars credulity. The tag needs to be removed. You're welcome to restrict the tag to just the one section - but even that will likely fail, because what you claim is not supported by an objective reading of the content. You are inferring and conflating a lot from a few scraps of content in the article. That's not a sound basis for an NPOV claim.Anastrophe (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the article devotes a relatively small amount of real estate to the Andrew Cuomo controversy in 2008. This is worth mentioning as it has reliable sourcing, but it does not justify slapping a NPOV tag on the entire article. This is more of a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT response. As the article points out, some of the American ISPs may have used the Cuomo controversy as a way of winding down free access to Usenet which was in decline at the time anyway. Like Anastrophe, I can't see anything in the text of this paragraph implying that Usenet is/was infested with child porn.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A statement that things have changed will do. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Too much to Scroll between History topic and Network topic

The subject line says it. --91.51.11.197 (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

"Google banned/blocked several newsgroups"

Re this edit: Here is what I said on my talk page: "I was looking for more mainstream coverage, as https://lwn.net/Articles/827233/ doesn't seem to be a very high profile source and is basically a collection of forum posts. It's undoubtedly important to the people involved, but it may have passed other people by. See also WP:RGW. I am concerned that the sourcing does not establish enough notability for this. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Content from same author as a cited post

I've been looking up old Usenet-related content. I found the Eternal September page and made an edit. There was another post from the same author that gave more context to one of the posts he was complaining about. [1]

I'm curious if the Wikipedia page should include the fact that users could see details about Usenet posts such as the email they came from and the like from a first-hand source. I found another source backing this up from computer writer Harley Hahn. [2] I don't know how to handle a citing situation like this, so I'm leaving this in Talk.

Also, I would like to know if Chambless's posts should even be used as sources on either the September page or this one and what can be substituted if not. GoutComplex (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not compulsory to give your real name or email address to post on Usenet. Back in the 1990s, people soon discovered that doing this could lead to stalking and spam. As a result, people often posted with an email address like fakenamefakedomain.com. The Harley Hahn source doesn't make this clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

graphic "Usenet_Providers_and_Backbones"

The graphic "Usenet_Providers_and_Backbones" is incorrect. It may be that these are the big commercial servers for binaries. But there are many more (also free or almost free) servers for text-only groups. --MiLuZi (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)