Talk:Internet/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Percentage of information carried through the internet

"It is estimated that in 1993 the Internet carried only 1% of the information flowing through two-way telecommunication, by 2000 this figure had grown to 51%, and by 2007 more than 97% of all telecommunicated information was carried over the Internet." - Where exactly in the linked source is this taken from? I cannot find this anywhere in the text :-( -- toblu [?!] 16:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It does seem strange. "The information flowing through two-way telecommunication" - what does that even mean? Does it include radio, landline, satellite, mobile phone? What do we mean by "carried over the Internet"? TCP/IP? I couldn't find anything relevant in the linked document, although it did often offer comparative figures for other things for those exact years. But it is 254 pages long. --Nigelj (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Communication

Communication At the moment the easiest thing that can be done using the internet is that we can communicate with the people living far away from us with extreme ease. Earlier the communication used to be a daunting task but all that chanced once internet came into the life of the common people. Now people can not only chat but can also do the video conferencing. It has become extremely easy to contact the loved ones who are in some other part of the world. Communication is the most important gift that the internet has given to the common man. Email, social networking sites are some of the prime example of it. This is one such gift of the internet which is cherished by everyone and has made our life easier to much extent.

2. Research

Research Now the point that has been placed next is research. In order to do research you need to go through hundreds of books as well as the references and that was one of the most difficult jobs to do earlier. Since the internet came into life, everything is available just a click away. You just have to search for the concerned topic and you will get hundreds of references that may be beneficial for your research. And since internet is here to make your research public, you can then benefit a large amount of people from the research work that you have done. Research is one such thing which has got lots of benefit from this evolution of internet. Research process has now got wings and has gained the most due to the internet.

3. Education

Education The next point that we have in this list is education. Yes you read it right. Education is one of the best things that the internet can provide. There are a number of books, reference books, online help centres, expert’s views and other study oriented material on the internet that can make the learning process very easier as well as a fun learning experience. There are lots and lots of websites which are related to different topic. You can visit them and can gain endless amount of knowledge that you wish to have. With the use of internet for education, you are non-longer dependent on some other person to come and teach you. There are various number of tutorials available over the internet using which you can learn so many thing very easily. There can’t be any excellent use of the internet other than education as it is the key to achieve everything in life.

4. Financial Transaction

Financial Transaction The next use mentioned here is financial transaction. Financial transaction is the term which is used when there is exchange of money. With the use of internet in the financial transaction, your work has become a lot easier. Now you don’t need to stand in the queue at the branch of your particular bank rather you can just log in on to the bank website with the credential that has been provided to you by the bank and then can do any transaction related to finance at your will. With the ability to do the financial transaction easily over the internet you can purchase or sell items so easily. Financial transaction can be considered as one of the best uses of resource in the right direction.

5. Real Time Updates

Real Time Updates Real time updates have been placed at the number fifth position here. This has been mentioned here in regards to the news and other happenings that may be on-going in different parts of the world but with the use of internet we come to know about it very easily and without any difficulty. There are various websites on the internet which provides you with the real time updates in every field be it in business, sports, finance, politics, entertainment and others. Many a time the decisions are taken on the real time updates that are happening in various parts of the world and this is where internet is very essential and helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.119.99 (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you implying that all of this information should be included in the article? I don't understand the relevance of all these details here. Discuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa012 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The internet. Trolling you with bad capitalization since 1883...

quote: "Historically the word internet was used, uncapitalized, as early as 1883 as a verb and adjective to refer to interconnected motions.[citation needed]"

Is this a typo meaning 1983? Or an off-topic but intentional point about weird history. I could find no reference or citation, so should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.143.148 (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Very likely vandalism. Feel free to revert. Whomever inserted that nonsense needs to be monitored for possible suspension or banning from Wikimedia Foundation projects. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The earliest I could trace such a statement back so far on the wide web was http://markhillpublishing.com/the-internet-transistor-radio/ I would like to leave that blogger a comment asking if they have any idea where they got that from, and if it was maybe something we could cite, but I can't get through their logon process yet. Maybe it's rubbish, but it's interesting to trace things back. --Nigelj (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This information was added here in this edit in 2012 by Pol098 (talk · contribs).. with a reference. The reference is not online, and I don't have access to the full OED at the moment to verify it. I don't know who removed the reference, why or when. I'll reinstate the ref, and try and find some template to tag it with 'citation not verified' or some other similar thing if I can find the right template. I think this is worth a few days of background research before just deleting it. --Nigelj (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As the original poster of this information, I should comment. The 3rd edition of the OED has an entry for "internetted" with citations dating back now to 1849 ("1849 W. F. Lynch Narr. U.S. Exped. River Jordan & Dead Sea xxii. 450 Her hair..was internetted with minute spiculæ of gold."); this form is mentioned in the article on "internet" as an adjective ("Interconnected; interwoven. Now rare."), but not as a noun. The 2nd ed, which I cited in my original edit, gave as earliest citation "1883 A. S. Herschel in Nature 15 Mar. 458/2 The marvellous maze of internetted motions." So an intentional point about weird history, not a typo or vandalism. While Wikipedia has no requirement for a source to be available online, the OED is (on subscription). I'm not sure if this works in general, but when I've clicked on a properly formatted reference to the OED in Wikipedia (template {{OED}}) without being logged in to OED I've been taken to the appropriate page [Added later: this didn't work after a reboot, login required, so not valid]. HTH Pol098 (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. This is a cycle I've seen quite often: information provided with source ==> source gets deleted ==> {{citation needed}} added ==> information gets deleted. Pol098 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Pol098's analysis and apologize. To clarify my remark above, whomever deleted the citation should be suspended or banned. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No culprit as such here, sorry; I've just noticed that the original OED reference wasn't deleted, but other text was inserted between the statement and the reference (also a common occurrence). This wasn't even wrong; the original reference applied also to the inserted text. I've just deleted the original reference, now duplicated by my recent edit. Pol098 (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I think it reads much better now, and it is more obvious that it is a point about weird history. It's probably a little off-topic, but I think interesting enough to be mentioned. There is really no connection between the 19th century meanings and today's, but hey maybe thats in itself point enough. Nice. -- same anonymous coward that opened this topic just in case it wasn't vandalism. P.S. how do you close out/delete a discussion? Or do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.143.148 (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Photo of ICANN headquarters

The photo that is appears here is not of the same building that is shown in the ICANN article. It seems to be a photo of the building in which the Information Sciences Institute is located, and was probably not updated when ICANN moved. Perhaps someone who knows which photo is correct could update this. Thanks. Jim (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a photo of ICANN's Los Angeles hub office, which is located in the Playa Vista district. The office was moved from Marina del Rey several years ago. 2620:0:2D0:100:ACB7:D42D:D42B:9739 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

category

Category:Media technology should be removed. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Deep Web"

The usage and primary topic of Deep Web is under discussion, see talk:Dark Web -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2015

Hi! I would like to request that the photo for this article be changed to the image hosted at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHU3ncmUEAAcs6C.jpg:large

I feel this image properly encompasses the spirit of the internet and should be the representative visualization of it on this page.

Thanks for your time! Nikki 156.34.95.3 (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: For what I hope are obvious reasons. Hulk Hogan =/= the internet. Cannolis (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Internet and cats

Please swing by and help improve this new article! :D--Coin945 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Bill Nye for National Science Foundation

Internet by Bill Nye for National Science Foundation

Suggested file to add to this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015

59.99.68.225 (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: No request was made. See WP:EDITREQ for assistance. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015

computer 59.99.68.225 (talk) 13:32, 14 October 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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Drawbacks

The Drawbacks section in its entirety is a POV piece, and therefore is inappropriate. It assumes that economic inequality, due to any condition or conditions, is inherently morally wrong. Wikipedia is not a place for moralizing. It also declaims against the fact that some businesses are more efficient, and hence better at utilizing scarce resources, and therefore better at maximizing the subjective values of the population. By using less resources, this also means those resources now no longer being consumed can be redirected to other uses, potentially creating more wealth and jobs than beforehand. Wikipedia is not the place to exhibit ignorance of basic economics in order to make a value judgement. It also seems to be essentially arguing for Ludditism. And Wikipedia is not a place to state that it is morally better to have twenty men digging a trench, vs one machine, freeing up the men for other, higher methods of production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.89 (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2015

Press the unblock network, ASUSX unblock. Not MF. Unblocked network ASUSX. 83.220.239.139 (talk) 08:52, 16 December 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. /wia🎄/tlk 14:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

please add in the history section:
"ARPANET experienced a complete halt on 27 October 1980 because of an accidentally-propagated status-message virus that can be considered the first internet hack in history."
Sources:

• This Day in History: October 27 | Computer History Museum, http://www.computerhistory.org/tdih/October/27/
• Hobbes' Internet Timeline - the definitive ARPAnet & Internet history, http://www.cs.kent.edu/~javed/internetbook/hobbestimeline/HIT.html
• ARPANET Outage Data Breach, su Person of Interest Wiki, http://personofinterest.wikia.com/wiki/ARPANET_Outage_Data_Breach
• James F. Kurose,Keith W. Ross, Reti di calcolatori e Internet. Un approccio top-down, Pearson, 2008, p. 660, ISBN 9788871924557.
• Happy Anniversary to the Early Internet's First Network-Wide Crash, http://motherboard.vice.com/read/happy-anniversary-to-the-early-internets-first-network-wide-crash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvrk80 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This should also be added to History of the Internet. --Fixuture (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: ARPANET was a prior network, and this seems too trivial for inclusion on the Internet page. But by all means add or request it on History of the Internet page though.GliderMaven (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Matt Drudge says if carried to the extreme, it is over for his DrudgeReport .!. Then he says, in effect, "Oh well...It's been a hell of a run."

Headline-1: HIGHEST EU COURT CONSIDERS CRIMINALIZING WEBSITE HYPERLINKS

• www.infowarscom/highest-eu-court-considers-criminalizing-website-hyperlinks/

QUOTE: "Social media, online journalism, blogs, web searches, comment sections could all be affected..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
WARNING TO ALL! “That will end (it) for me – fine – I’ve had a hell of a run,” said Drudge. “To have a Supreme Court Justice say to me it’s over, they’ve got the votes, which means time is limited.”

Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. Ahem. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The capitalization thing, revisited

Potentially relevant or interesting, at least to future discussion here, though I'm certainly not proposing or intending to make any changes to the article itself at this time: Slate: The AP Stylebook Will No Longer Capitalize Internet. What a Shame.

There are quite a few good points in the reader comments. I find myself disagreeing with Slate, based partly on the strength (poor) of their case for Internet remaining a capitalized noun. You don't call someone on the Telephone, do you? Arguments for how the worldwide data network is in some way different, more special, or deserving of proper noun status just don't seem very compelling. Perhaps we're approaching the time where society stops pretending there's such a thing as "The Internet", when it's really just the internet. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw that Slate article, too, and popped in to make peace with this. I'm satisfied with how the news about AP Stylebook was handled at Capitalization of "Internet". I used to argue with people, but after the AP caved I lost heart. Today I am taking their side. I also see that the UK was leading this direction. Language changes. I disagree with the telephone comparison. The internet and the telephone don't compare well in this way. The word "telephone" didn't start its life as a proper noun. (You don't call someone on the internet, either. You can call them via the internet. Or via the Internet. Same meaning.) tbc (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Kiva Internal Link Leads To Wrong Article

Under 'accomplishments' the link on Kiva should lead to Kiva_(organization) not Kiva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlazePyro (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's called a disambig error. I don't see it, though... (?) White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I did (searching for 'Kiva' on the page). Fixed. Rp (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Origins of the Internet

'The origins of the Internet date back to research commissioned by the United States government in the 1960s to build robust, fault-tolerant communication via computer networks' needs to be changed to: The origins of the Internet date back to research commissioned by the United States government and the government of the United Kingdom in the 1960s to build robust, fault-tolerant communication via computer networks. I have the required citations from the NPL, The Guardian and The InterNet Hall of Fame which categorically show that both the US and the UK were independently working on, 'robust, fault-tolerant communication via computer networks' and that while British pioneers helped develop Arpanet the same was not true at NPL. Also, don't forget that the first digital local network in the world to use packet switching and high-speed links was at the NPL campus. I'll wait a week for any objections before updating the article. regards.Twobells^t@lk 20:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

NO. You must not conflate the development of packet switching, which is only one aspect of the project, with the development of the Internet. Similar efforts were ongoing in France as well, and both countries were already credited with such work in the lede, and I find that placement already almost too much detail for a summary. The ARPANET was a DOD project and the only places where researchers reported to was Washington, not London, or anywhere. This has nothing to do with ignoring Davies' work, or Pouzin's for that matter. They can certainly be credited in the body for their parts, if not already, but their home-base research networks have nothing to do with the ARPANET. Kbrose (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I do not see a problem, Davies work was the very basis to ArpaNet, American scientists directly involved confirm that and he should be credited along with Roger Scantlebury and Peter Wilkingson, I have the Guardian and NPL sources that categorically show that their work led to the creation of ARPANET. Also, The origins of the Internet date back to research commissioned by the United States government in the 1960s to build robust, fault-tolerant communication via computer networks, the Internet dates back to the work done by France, the UK and US (listed alphabetically) editors have no right to claim that America invented the net. If you want, I am happy to get an rfc on the issue but the sources "Packets of data were the key...". NPL. Retrieved 1 August 2015. Scantlebury, Roger; Wilkinson, Peter (25 June 2013). "Internet pioneers airbrushed from history". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 August 2015. (two among many) speak for themselves, regards. Twobells^t@lk 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Early research efforts belong in the body of the article, not in the lede. The body has indeed a section where precursor work is outlined. Like in any large research project ideas get assimilated from many sources, but this does not constitute the claim being made. Researchers have always communicated internationally. Packet switching was not just NPL's achievement, Baran did the identical work earlier actually, before Davies, in the US, and it too was funded by the DoD. Yes, Davies created the name packet switching and was the first to widely recognized for the concepts, and the article does that already, but in the end, it was the DARPA project leadership and funding that is to be credited solely for creation of the Internet through the late 80s. If there were any credible collaboration to incorporate the concept into DARPA code, the networks would have been interconnected at an early state, but they weren't because the DARPA folks created their own implementation and protocols were completely different and non-interoperable. It is easy to claim credit decades later, especially with "marketing" references that you are using, which seem to have a sort of activist flavor, but it just wasn't so. Everyone knows about Davies' work, and he is amply cited for that, but if you really want to be true to sources, then you should also mention that Davies himself credited Baran for the most relevant previous work. Yours are not reliable references for the claim. Kbrose (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Davis did co-invent packet switching, but you and your cited article perhaps give a bit too much credit to packet switching as the sole basis of the Internet. It certainly is a fundamental technology, but not anymore so than DNS or the TCP/IP protocol suite which Davies had nothing to do with. Also, the article doesn't even mention the work of Paul Baran, which is ironic given that it is an article about people's contributions allegedly being ignored. Baran actually invented it a few years before Davies. While Davies coined the term 'packet switching' and was an important figure in developing the first packet switched networks, he was not the first person to explore the concept, and the people at ARPANET were already aware of Baran's work. There were certainly other technologies and computer networks that laid the groundwork for ARPANET, but ARPANET was the first network to implement TCP/IP - the fundamental communications technology of the Internet, and marry it with packet switching which is basically what created the Internet. ARPANET was the first node of the Internet and is the network that the global Internet grew out of, so it is a bit right to say that it did originate in the US. We don't say that Douglas Engelbart invented the World Wide Web because he created hypertext. Chrono85 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors tend to get hung up on ArpaNet, suggesting that was the origin point of the internet, it wasn't, Arpanet was purely cosmetic, the actual tech behind it, packet switching had been carried out the previous October based on Donald Davies work. Subsequently, the internet was a result of independent, international contributions, the history of the internet articles state so, the various bodies that worked on the technology in the 1960's say so, the research and source material says so, so with the deepest respect please can we get some conformity across the articles rather than what we have which is a frankly jingoistic approach to a serious subject? Regards. Twobells (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The ARPANET is the correct entity to get hung up about when it comes to Internet history. Not NPL or CYCLADES; they only demonstrated small portions of the overall volume of technical innovation, the essence of the Internet was not in these innovations, but in the vision of creating the network, the funding, the people, and the dedication to making it real. The efforts in Britain and France went no where, and Europe was still communicating by 'primitive' networks even when the NSFNET was already established as the backbone in the US. The only network that might be more emphasized is the Merit Network, whose principal actors actually were some of the most influential leaders that brought about the international expansion and commercialization in the late 80 and early 90s. You are fundamentally wrong in your wishful interpretation of biased news sources.Kbrose (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Request for citations in 7.3 - Social networking and entertainment

"The Internet has been a major outlet for leisure activity since its inception, with entertaining social experiments such as MUDs and MOOs being conducted on university servers, and humor-related Usenet groups receiving much traffic. Today, many Internet forums have sections devoted to games and funny videos. Over 6 million people use blogs or message boards as a means of communication and for the sharing of ideas." I would like to see at least one citation for each of those three sentences. Has the internet truly been a major outlet[...]? Can we see at least one or two examples of the alleged "entertaining social experiments"? How much is "much traffic"? How many is "many Internet forums"? What are "funny videos"? Where does the "over 6 million people" figure come from? 190.230.112.222 (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

main purpose

The network is used to collect information about users, as well as spying on them, including audio recording, video, correspondence, etc .. This is main. At the moment, it is the main purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.106.6.92 (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for update in reference to Berdal, S.R.B. (2004). "Public deliberation on the Web: A Habermasian inquiry into online discourse". Oslo: University of Oslo.

I tried to follow the link, but it is dead. Found the correct PERMANENT link for this publication : http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-9893 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Observer77 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Internet

I think is not really useful to me because they didn't mention how to make internet more secured. Hackers can be get private information if the internet is not secured. In addition, they should be tell us how to let internet system be security and make people's private information to be safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.223 (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That's outside of the scope of the Wikipedia project. Please review WP:NOT. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Internet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210181738/http://www.merit.edu/about/history/pdf/NSFNET_final.pdf to http://www.merit.edu/about/history/pdf/NSFNET_final.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/AsImplemented.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.bc.edu/~hughesc/abstract.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140706101452/http://www.myclouddoor.com/web/documents/The%20New%20Digital%20Economy.pdf to http://www.myclouddoor.com/web/documents/The%20New%20Digital%20Economy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140825164715/http://s23.org/wikistats/largest_html.php?sort=users_desc&th=8000&lines=500 to http://s23.org/wikistats/largest_html.php?sort=users_desc&th=8000&lines=500
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/the-cascading-effects-of-the-arab-spring-28575/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

INTERNET

A means of connecting a computer to any other computer anywhere in the world via dedicated routers and servers.Internet is a inter-connection of multiple network.Biolizzy (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CyxHpfIR?url=http://www.norsar.no/norsar/about-us/History/Internet/ to http://www.norsar.no/norsar/about-us/History/Internet/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v74/i1/p47_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2017, NTIA no longer has a say in IANA-matters

Change the following since it is no longer true: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, continues to have final approval over changes to the DNS root zone. Suggested new formulation: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, had final approval over changes to the DNS root zone until the IANA stewardship transition on the 1st of October 2016.

NTIA-source : https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assistant-secretary-strickling-iana-functions-contract Flindeberg (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Done EnticingCanine (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2017

Please change "The Internet is the global system of interconnected computer networks that use the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to link devices worldwide." to "The Internet is the global system of interconnected computer networks that use a Internet protocol suite to link devices worldwide." because if a Postal Network is original Internet (physical transportation network of networks) and if it is digitized connecting Digital Mailboxes(devices like WI-FI) worldwide using different protocol like say IPsec, it still needs to fall under Internet category. Bkammela (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: IPsec is a development of original IP so IPSec connected devices are still covered by the definition. Changing the article from "the" to "an" does not change substance of the definition. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"Overarching"?

In the final, 4th paragraph of the lead, should "overreaching definitions of the two principal name spaces" instead read "overarching"? Nihil novi (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831063352/http://www.50x15.com/en-us/internet_usage.aspx to http://www.50x15.com/en-us/internet_usage.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/?f=archive.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017

Ahmedrza677 (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2017 (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. Izno (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead edits

@Power~enwiki: With respect to these changes, I appreciate the initiative to edit down the Internet lead. Did you check to see if any of the material you deleted was potentially useful to Internet § History, History of the Internet or History of the World Wide Web? ~Kvng (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure everything is in Internet § History. I didn't check the other two pages. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

First use of the term 'Internet'

Vintage S-1000 Portable AM Radio - 'Internet' Brand Transistor Radio

1970 Transistor Radio. First verifiable commercial use of the term 'Internet' I can date with photos of my 9th birthday. (Born 1961) I had the first 'internet'. I coveted this radio in a shop in 1970 but I remember it for sale at least six months earlier, because I had to save up for it. Internet sold several other radios under the 'Internet' brand. Date 1970 certainly, 1969 very possibly.

Links: http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/unknown_internet_s_1000.html

https://markhillpublishing.com/the-internet-transistor-radio/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameTimeSameChannel (talk • contribs) 13:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Many sources cite 4-5 years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameTimeSameChannel (talk • contribs) 13:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

https://cdn.ddweb.pro/900club/images/wheels/scaled/InternetTransistor.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameTimeSameChannel (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2017

The current version is vandalized. Remove the following phrase: "depression/suicidal thought-inducing" Yizhizhai (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ruggedness

The Internet was originally designed to be a rugged intercommunication protocole in case of excessive radiation (microwave, other).

It should be obvious that the amount of excess Microsoft and Bank beautifying protocoles have made it so that that ruggedness is no longer there and so gone, that it is no longer possible to maintain nor have effective communication on any line that might have excess static.

IE: It is not possible to contact your service provider effectively, the amount of Mister Ille propaganda and fast clitch prone beautifying html having made that impossible on any line with some static.

It is not possible to contact your ban effectively, the amount of Executive Ille propaganda and fast clitch prone beautifying bank html having made that impossible on any line with some static.

Used to be that it was said that it takes the beaurocracy to really muck up a good thing. I suppose that in this day and age, that implies that those executives that banks have, including those positions that a service provider would have, would all have gone to those whom needed a landing position from a beaurocratic position, for not much more then having accepted the bribe to move 'people' into choosing individuals whom allowed that direction to be taken.

I see no overal statements to that effect in this Wiki page. Is that on purpose, or plain downright 'three monkeys' oversight?

Thank you for rectifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.33.30 (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Categories

Please delete all categories except "Internet".

The categories included here are almost - but not exactly - the same as those for "Category Internet" page. There's no obvious reason for users to have to work with two lists and there is more information to found on the Category:Internet page (subcategories for example).

Thanks 67.160.196.6 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

A majority of the world's population now uses the Internet

World Internet Users Statistics and 2017 World Population Stats

I feel this should be included and the article, and replace those predictions (such as 44% use by 2020).--RM (Be my friend) 20:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

At Infrastructure, under the Routing and service tiers subheading, the section starts with Internet service providers. It then goes on to reference ISP without specifying that the acronym refers to internet service providers. Please add (ISP) after the words Internet service providers. Momalle313 (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Already done in "History" section. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017

"entangled into" to "entangled in" . Do the parts maintain their state or do they become something else that cannot be separated later? 2605:E000:9161:A500:C5B3:12E7:7862:8F3A (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Mention your changes in an x to y format and specify which section of the article you are talking about SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 18:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"entangled into" to "entangled in" . you cannot miss it--only one mention. do string search to confirm.2605:E000:9161:A500:C5B3:12E7:7862:8F3A (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: It's part of a quote. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Internet vs internet (decapitalization)

The trend toward decapitalization of the term has hit top-flight style guides already including the AP, so it seems that the Terminology section of this article is way out of date. Perhaps it is time it was flagged for a rewrite. I'm still something of a Wikipedia editing newb, so I think the editing is best left up to another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tastybrain (talk • contribs) 11:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The Terminology section seems fine to me. Despite the AP standards, there are some experts who still favor the capitalization when it is referring to the proper noun, and lowercase when referring to a generic collection of networks. I personally subscribe to this view as well. Regardless of what version becomes the official standard, the Terminology section still provides valuable information about the term. Jserio2 (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

A linked article actually makes a case (at least for 2015 when it was writen) for capitlization, not against it, "...the word internet is uppercase in virtually every reference book on the English language: dictionaries, encyclopedias, the Chicago Manual of Style, even Wikipedia." The rest of the piece is advocacy. Capitalization of the term on WP is currently mixed (Jserio2's style is just one reason for this). This has been discussed a lot both on WP and elsewhere and until a strong consensus emerges, I don't think a campaign to "correct" these inconsistencies would be productive. Arguing about these grammar details never feels productive to me. Maybe that's just me. When we're past the point of feeling inclined to argue about it, that's when the changes can be made. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2017

The provided article is good but small, i would like to add more to this topic so that people don't have to search for necessary details in the DETAILED article, i'll add the important points which might take like 100-120 words and will be only necessary facts and no round-round para's, please help me out to help others out. Warm Regards: Dev Contact me at dls026.dn@gmail.com Devil260 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done We don't contact people on email or wherever else not related to Wikipedia. If what you want add is relevant and verifiable then write it here that is the purpose of this page, then omebody will add it.  — Ammarpad (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Internet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.norsar.no/norsar/about-us/History/Internet/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://info.cern.ch/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907002515/http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/internet/internet.htm to http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/internet/internet.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104203356/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/EnvironmentTechnology/?view=usa&ci=9780199255771 to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/EnvironmentTechnology/?view=usa&ci=9780199255771

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested section on history: Precursors and parallel projects

One of the precursors to the modern Internet is PLATO (computer system), which started in 1960. PLATO should really be worth a mention, as this computer system pioneered the many use-case concepts, such as e-mail and chat. In many respects, PLATO preceded ARPANET (later The Internet) in terms of deployment, and FidoNet (1984) preceded The Internet in availability. -Mardus /talk 17:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Internet vs The Internet

Should this be "Internet or "The Internet"? I feel like "The Internet" is better because it is normally used in reference, like "The Internet here is really good" or "The Internet is used around the world." Which is better, or should I WP:BEBOLD and do it?TheGoldenParadox (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This has come up before. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I am talking about the name of the article itself. In the discussion, the final consensus was that "The Internet" was better. Would it be better as a page title? TheGoldenParadox (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Because we don't use "The" in page titles unless the "The" is actually part of the name of the subject of the article. Please read up on definite and indefinite articles. -Coolcaesar (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Coolcaesar is probably correct on this. Look at other articles, like Earth. When speaking we say "the Earth" but encyclopedia articles dispense with "the" in titles as unnecessary. Majoreditor (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be the internet Ayoyonetizen (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article say that it's a website

I'm not sure why the article leaves out that the internet is a website. It seems pretty important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.87.187 (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Because it isn’t a website maybe? A somewhat poor analogy would be that the internet is the fuel and the web the car. DNA Cowboy (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Misleading and A Throwaway Description of the World Wide Web

I am actually astonished at such wording, the essential dismissal of TBL’s work that has been described as just ‘a collection of web documents and services’ is factually wrong and worse, has been allowed to remain central to the article and any attempt to rectify that misleading description prevented by the protected nature of the article. No mention of the fact that the web is the device by which most internet services connect and the method by which most people interact with the internet, it is almost as though an attempt has been made to reduce the impact of the Web in favour of the Internet. DNA Cowboy (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Historically Incorrect Article

The article states that the internet’s origins lay with the United States but any student of history knows this is not true, that in fact there were three on-going attempts to create networks, those were (chronologically listed) NPL, Cyclades and Arpanet, so my question is why does the article promote a false history? DNA Cowboy (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018

Please fix the broken link in citation #85. The correct URL is located here: http://www.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics/ -- Thank you! 207.239.64.196 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The current page you mention has a lot less detail than the previous one, which has an archive. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: the link is not broken because an archive link is available. I concur with Anon126 in that the current page is a lot less detailed than the previous one. Alternatively, the new link can be added as an additional reference. feminist (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Real question?

Are there in Internet the "CODE" to go at more "Web-pages"? Can CODE be used as "normal words" in Internet to research with browser? (Is there a Law about this question?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018

Please remove {{Too long|date=March 2018}} at line 2 as the article is not that long, compared to other high-profile pages. It has already been appropriately split into sub-articles, so this template is not of much use. Besides, less than 1 percent of our readers edit, so why bother them with templates they don't understand and clog up the article? This would be a bit of a WP:BOLD edit, but still, I think it would make the article better. Thank you. 172.56.5.164 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done mainly because the tag was a drive-by tag, i.e., the user that added it didn't discuss it here on the talk page and it was also that user's only contribution to this article. I would not object to the tag being re-added if accompanied by a proper discussion here on the talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Category "Public Service" ? "Media" ?

Firemen, Police, ... "Provided by the government". If the Internet is not a public service that category should be deleted.

The internet is a transport scheme; it neither adds, deletes nor modifies items transmitted. Hence it has some impact on media and those categories should be deleted. 67.160.196.6 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2018

129.45.97.0 (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Danski454 (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2018

Binary update (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 04:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Empirical evidence that hypertext link network is scale-free

According to the other wikipedia page on scale-free networks, a network is said to be scale-free if its degree distribution obeys a power law asymptotically, that is, for a large number of nodes. The cited source by Barabasi et al does not itself give empirical verification that the hypertext link network is in fact scale-free, but actually cites other sources to get the power law exponent. I did not check the citations given in Barabasi et al to see if they did this empirical verification. My concern comes from a paper by Amaral LAN, Scala A, Barthelemy M, Stanley HE (2000). "Classes of small-world networks". PNAS. 97 (21): 11149–52. where they studied several networks and found that in practice though a network may have degree distribution obeys a power law for a moderate number of nodes, the power law becomes truncated into exponential decay when the number of nodes is large, thus no being scale-free, at least according to the asymptotic definition given on the other wikipedia page. Barabasi et al themselves write that "even for those networks for which [their degree dstribution] has an exponential tail, the degree distribution significantly deviates from a Poisson distribution" (p. 71), which worries me since the definition of scale-free in wikipedia of obeying a power law is asymptotic for a large number of nodes.

So the point is that, could a more direct reference to a line number or page number or a reference cited from Barabasi that shows that the degree distribution of both the Internet IP routing structure and hypertext links network of the World Wide Web in fact obey a power-law for large number of nodes? DesolateReality (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Statistics on 4G access not found

I went to the webapge [www.gsma.com] on GSMA but could not find the said statistics. For instance, at [1] p. 8, it is written that the number of unique mobile subscribers in the whole world in 2016 is 4.8 billion, which is 4.8 billion/7.455 billion = 64% of the then world population. So it appears very unlikely that "as of 2016, almost 60% of the world population had access to a 4G. . . network", as written in the wikipedia article.

Could you please provide the direct statistics from the GSMA website? DesolateReality (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Honoring the Developers

Pictures of the individuals who developed the first networking systems should be on the page. Roncon1 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2019

Add More clear details on how it is not equal to The web 216.37.72.238 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You can suggest such changes here in the form of "change X to Y" – Þjarkur (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The “world wide web,” or “the web” is defined as just the connections between devices that can view websites and the servers that make up all the websites in the internet. The “internet,” on the other hand, is defined as all the connections between every device in the world, even ones that cannot access the world wide web. The point is, there is a noticeable difference, so no merging is required between the two articles.  ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  💬 02:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Moore's law

Shouldn't Moore's law be mentioned and linked from the article? I noticed it suddenly vanished. While the amount of information on transistors in an article about the Internet may vary over time, I'm not sure 0% is the correct number. Was the Internet was made without any transistors and was it made possible due to the drastic fall in their cost, because that seems to be the implication? GliderMaven (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Moore's law is apparently is the doubling every 18 months of Internet bandwidth now. Who knew? Nobody, because no it isn't. GliderMaven (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I previously added a paragraph on transistors, MOSFET scaling and Moore's law in this old version here. But User:Kbrose removed it because s/he didn't feel it was relevant to the article. So as a compromise, I tried to squeeze that paragraph down to just a single sentence. While I would prefer to go into more detail in a paragraph, I'm not quite sure if that's something Kbrose would agree with. I think we may have to reach some kind of consensus. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I've changed the wording, to state that it's related to Moore's law, rather than actually being Moore's law. As explained in the cited source, Moore's law (transistor count doubling every two years) contributes to the Internet bandwidth doubling every 18 months, along with other advances in MOS technology (such as advances in laser tech and noise performance). Maestro2016 (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Интернет - забор для излития души ..

Каждый изголяетца как может .. От всей души ! Со всей прытью как стремительный шлакоблок в лоб .. Или с улыбкой навсегда ! :) , или в задумчивость как Офелия - " Дождик кап, кап, кап - водичка в гроб бежит .. " ..

Жгучие лайки с селфями по углам .. 

Но сторон света шесть - север, юг, запад, восток, в космос, в землю. Поэтому уменьшаю всё шестикратно. И " всё становитца на свои места ". Без преувеличений Мир - много интереснее. 85.140.18.131 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

Ivan LIong Wen Chiat (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to edit as I have spotted a few errors and would like to change them. .

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"Enterprise networks" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Enterprise networks. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

wikification

"The Internet is a global network that comprises many voluntarily interconnected autonomous networks" put in "autonomous networks" link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_(Internet) . In the beginning "(portmanteau of interconnected network)" put https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocol to the word interconnected and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_(Internet) to "network" 2A00:1370:812C:5D73:4493:5501:BB24:D2E6 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"Intternnett" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Intternnett. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Intternnett until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Net culture" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Net culture. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Net culture until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"Net cultures" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Net cultures. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Net cultures until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

In the "History" section, after: Early international collaborations for the ARPANET were rare. Connections were made in 1973 to the Norwegian Seismic Array (NORSAR) via a satellite station in Tanum, Sweden, and to Peter Kirstein's research group at University College London which provided a gateway to British academic networks.[23][24] add: In addition at least one connection to a commercial computer services bureau (SIA Ltd, who operated a CDC 6600 supercomputer in London, England) was made so that the company could market its services overseas.

NOTE to Wikipedia editor: I can guarantee the accuracy of this addition I was the guy who wrote the assembler code to do it! HarrisMan99 (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that supports this addition. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Addition to Further reading

the following good book on the history of the Internet and the story of the scientists behind its creation should be added to "Further reading": Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon, Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1996, ISBN 0-684-87216-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybay (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

important info missing in history section on resistance to the Internet

https://www.internethalloffame.org//blog/2015/11/12/untold-internet-internet-osi-standards-wars --Espoo (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You have a legitimate point. Unfortunately, the OSI v. Internet battle is of interest only to historians of technology. The few people with the knowledge, ability, and interest to draft an intelligent, properly sourced treatment of that issue are too busy working on their Ph.Ds. I have the knowledge and ability but not the interest. I have over a dozen more interesting topics to work on that have been backed up on average for five years, like product liability. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

There is now an article covering the Internet-OSI Standards War at Protocol Wars. Whizz40 (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2020

I'd like to remove these sentences:

"VoIP has also become increasingly popular for gaming applications, as a form of communication between players. Popular VoIP clients for gaming include Ventrilo and Teamspeak. Modern video game consoles also offer VoIP chat features." BthompsonHV 19:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@BthompsonHV: - Why do you want to remove these sentences? They seem to make sense to me, as they help explain more about communication. (They are, however, unsourced.) - Dyork (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dyork: The sentences don't fit with the context of the rest of the paragraph. It just adds unnecessary clutter and doesn't add any clarity for the reader. VoIP isn't used only in gaming. It's used very broadly now, so that statement is pretty irrelevant these days with the likes of Zoom, Discord, Google Voice etc.

@BthompsonHV: - Thanks for the explanation, and in looking at the paragraph more, I do see what you mean. - Dyork (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The entire section has been cleanup up a bit. Kbrose (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kbrose: - Thanks for cleaning that up. Looks better now! - Dyork (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)