Talk:Internet of things/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Confusion to be cleared around the scope of the term "Internet of Things"

In this article, the term "Internet of Things" has been likened to the term "Internet of Everything" (which to my mind, has a broader scope). Is it correctly done so? I'm not sure, but if it is correct, then please consider setting the term "Internet of Everything" to redirect to this article. -Devan Furia (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

leading text needs rewriting

Who says that IoT is based "on the infrastructure of International Telecommunication Union's Global Standards Initiative.[1]"? ITU does telephone lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1398:200:200:6E88:14FF:FE04:52E4 (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Internet of Things In Literature (both in fiction and non-fiction)

This talk page debate might well be served by adding a section to the article itself titled "The Internet of Things in literature." For instance Stephen Baker published The Numerati in 2008 the same year as some of the comments on gibberish in this talk page. The Internet of Things has taken on life in popular culture not reflected in this article. The article might stand an additional level of indirection. condor (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Devices for the year 2020

There's contradictory information about the amount of connected devices for the year 2020. Don Equis (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Internet of Things

Cyberbot II has detected links on Internet of Things which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://yourstory.com/2015/03/crowd-pitch-2015/

  Triggered by \byourstory\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Why Is This Page Written Like Philosophy?

Why doesn't it get into the technical aspects,protocols, software, and hardware? It is written like some sort of philosophy or marketing jargon. 71.173.24.71 (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't assess the whole article in such light, but indeed it could use a major copy edit, which I've proposed in several instances above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This is hopeless marketing gibberish

It starts with the first lead sentence: The Internet of Things (IoT) is the interconnection of uniquely identifiable embedded computing devices within the existing Internet infrastructure. This means nothing. Embedded computers have been used on the Internet for decades now, and everyone has always been uniquely identified, they were not floating around the Internet anonymously. In the infrastructure requires a bit of definition what that means. The infrastructure already has embedded devices, intelligent router cards, sensors, and what not... Kbrose (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it sounds like marketing or philosophical bantering. 71.173.24.71 (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A unique MAC address does not make things "identifiable" unless there is also some way to find it. For a long time my house thermostats (or similar devices) have had IP networking and the ability to communicate with the boiler, or solar panels, using this IP connection. This is a simple enough way of connecting things, especially as it can use an existing cabling system and so avoid running I2C or CANbus around in addition. It's not an "internet" though - there's no distributed naming, there's no scope to make connections beyond those that have been specifically configured as point-to-point logical links.

With a broader IoT approach, we see naming and service discovery too. So now my thermostat can ask what today's energy prices are and the weather forecast, then decide how much heating it's going to need, whether the solar system is likely to produce much, and whether to buy the rest from either gas or electric heating. I cna then see this happening on my smartphone, because these identifiable services are now routable through the larger 'net. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Section "Enabling technologies for the IOT" needs overhaul

The section below, as it stands at 25 November 2015, needs a rewrite. It current reads as if it is from the viewpoint of someone who spends all day looking at a smart phone. We defintiely needs this section - but it needs to cover the basic compute platform improvments (eg SoC, microcontroller), battery tech (eg LiPo, PV cell), comms protocols (IPv6, MQTT), carriage (like WiFi/4G/LPWAN,BLE), and so on.

martyvis (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Enabling technologies for the IOT

There are mainly three types of technologies that enable IOT.

• RFID and near-field communication - In the 2000s, RFID was the dominant technology. Later, NFC became dominant (NFC). The latest iPhone 6 supports NFC for Apple Pay.
• Optical tags and quick response codes - This is used for low cost tagging. Phone cameras decodes QR code using image-processing techniques. In reality QR advertisement campaigns gives less turnout as users need to have another application to read QR codes.
• Bluetooth low energy - This is one of the latest tech. All newly releasing smartphones have BLE hardware in them. Tags based on BLE can signal their presence at a power budget that enables them to operate for up to one year on a lithium coin cell battery.

• @Martyvis: I agree completely with your assessment, although it is my opinion we could scrap the section completely for now. It would be futile to try and list or even generally cover a sample of IoT-enabling technologies currently in use, or planned. Having a severely deficient section is worse than none at all, as it misrepresents the topic to a wide audience. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Also, the whole article stands as a mish-mash of different random observations about IoT, without any coherence or overall structure. The article without a doubt needs a major copy edit. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• I chipped in an extra line on low power radio but it should be further improved with references and BTle etc need adding. I think it is useful to have key enablers - and I guess even the Cloud is missing here - but this could help technical readers? Bravekermit (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Link reference number 9

The link for reference number 9, directs the user to IOT Barcelona. A webpage that it seems it used to have an article about what's the scope of IoT gonna be at year 2020. But this article exists no more (the webpage is up and running though). How does wikipedia staff proceed on these cases?

Billy Tunin (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If possible, replace the link by a working link pointing to the same document. I fixed this particular link that way. --Ajv39 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Calling other people's edits nonsense

User:FoCuSandLeArN removed text of "Why People Fear" the IoT and accompanying reference with the edit summary: "deleted nonsense and unreferenced info". I will restore this text because I trust a published author more than a Wiki editor as to what is nonsense and I read much of Brian Krebs' piece. It makes sense to me. - Fartherred (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Fartherred: You were reverted once, now it's time to discuss per WP:BRD; please refrain from reverting without discussing this addition appropriately. Now, as for the text you added: 1) you cited a primary source, mainly his own work - content needs to count with independent and reliable sourcing for it to be deemed notable for inclusion; 2) there is no indication (again due to inappropriate sourcing) the statement by Krebs itself is notable; for it to be considered notable, we need to present opinions from other parties about the comment itself, otherwise we would not be an encyclopaedia, but rather a repository of random comments by people. 3) The sentence appears out of place and does not follow a coherent section structure, the prose randomly switching from the hacking of vehicles to your text - there is no overarching principle linking the ideas. I hope this is enough to guide you through what needs to be done to the material: either improved referencing and structure are accommodated for, or the text will not be added to the article. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

that enables these objects to collect and exchange.... pizza?

This can't be right, but I don't know enough about the topic to change it. I just know that it does not collect and exchange pizza. Although that would be sweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:4001:E2E0:41DD:A6BE:BB61:A731 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Dangling figure

I think there should be a stronger connection between the speed limit image and the text, otherwise the image itself does not convey anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.124.203 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Technical writer (IoT Request for Public Comment)

This article is being considered for inclusion in further research on the main topic. Authorities on the theme "IoT" are needed to provide technical specifications and industry insight to be included in official and conclusive research on the Internet of Things and it's role in defining a universal standard specification. If interested, go to:

http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-07892

Note: This message is time sensitive. This post will be removed after the deadline. Habatchii (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Habatchii What are you proposing to do? I see a government request for comment on the concept of "Internet of Things". Are you saying that you will send them a copy of this Wikipedia article so that it is considered among their other information sources? If so, that seems like a great idea. This post should not be removed - it is good to have a record of this discussion. Will you send the email? Can you confirm when you do? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding. The group needs comments from the public at large. I will be participating in the current session as a commenter, so I thought it would be only fair to invite a globally recognized information provider such as Wikipedia. I have not brought the issue up with the Wikimedia Foundation or any the other sister sites; just to give the editors here an opportunity to make the announcements. I would like to include the IoT article in the initial comments, so if you would like to make any final updates or improvements, the deadline is set for late May 2016. The link above has all the official details. I will update this post to let you know when I will be submitting the article/comments.

Thanks again and please keep up the good work on this project!! Habatchii (talk)

{External Links: Add the link to CDAIT on this page}

Hello, can I add the link for the Center of the Development and Application of Internet of Things Technologies (cdait.gatech.edu) to the Internet of things page. This site provides news, articles, and papers that are centered around IoT. Although, it is based in Atlanta, the information available is from sources from all over the nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Future hindrix (talk • contribs) 18:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at it, and it seems that the primary purpose of the site is to promote CDAIT and work coming out of Georgia tech (not surprising, it is the organization's own website). I'm not sure that this agrees with WP:ELNO points 4 and 19. - MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

'Wi-Fi' kettle

Well he finally did get a cuppa, after ELEVEN hours setting-up his (smart?) kettle.

Bonnie Malkin (12 October 2016) "English man spends 11 hours trying to make cup of tea with Wi-Fi kettle" theguardian.com, Retrieved 12 October 2016.

I have already add this info for reference to the Kettle talkpage.220 of ^Borg 13:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Military History

The whole military history is missing, is this an oversight or is only the commercial and academic aspect of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl smith (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Moved from top of page 220 of ^Borg 13:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Pulsating

To whom this may concern,

I have been tasked to make an edit on the Internet of Things wiki page for the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Center for the Development and Application of Internet of Things Technology (CDAIT). I have put the edit “in a pulsating world” and attached the documents to cite the phrase. However, each time that I have made the edit it have been removed. Why is this? (I only ask to have a detailed explanation to present to my project director) and also may I have permission to edit on the Internet of Things page without being removed? I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Future hindrix (talk • contribs)

While that's an interesting turn of phrase, it doesn't seem to convey any information to the reader. Why exactly should it be included? - MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree MrOllie, it sounds like a marketing 'buzzword'. 220 of ^Borg 13:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing on Stuxnet and how IoT is related to SCADA?

I feel some security talk is needed on this page?

I would suggest there needs to be quite a bit more talk on the topic of IoT security. A grand total of 1 sentence talking about how the first DDoS attack from a IoT botnet was several times larger than any other DDoS previously recorded? Stuxnet is also a good topic and an example of the reverse (targeting IoT-type devices, rather than IoT-type devices targeting the Internet). 207.172.210.101 (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this page and patent may help clarify how SCADA and IOT kinda fused: http://www.ajawamnet.com/amnet/index.html - and yea that's me (the goofy dude with the cig) Link to patent - https://www.google.com/patents/US6208266 The date of priority is aug 1995; I was working on that back in June of 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wamnet (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Lede image

File:Internet of Things.jpg

Is the File:Internet of Things.jpg cartoon a useful lede image for this article? It seems a little jumbled and cryptic to me. I think a picture of a connected object (like File:Nest_Learning_Thermostat_(cropped).JPG) gets the "it's a thing, but connected to the internet" message across more clearly. --McGeddon (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The thermostat is to me just one thing. The cartoon expresses better the many, many things that are connected. Just my 2-cents. --Ajv39 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a montage of photos, then? At thumbnail size, most of the illustrated objects are unclear (and even full-size I have no idea what the flowers, the red "4", the arm-muscle or the figure squatting and saying "II" are about). --McGeddon (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that the cartoon is very illustrative. But such a montage would be better. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Term coining

Is there any evidence for the 1985 Lewis coining? The reference doesn't exist, and most sources seem to agree on Ashton Grusl2017 (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

So remove then? Grusl2017 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I scrubbed through both Google Scholar and Google proper for every related search term that I could think of, and I cannot find any evidence for this claim. There are plenty of blogs that present it as fact, but all of them link to the source used in this article. My vote is for removal. Edit -- Found a couple of decent sources that refer to Ashton as the coiner. Ashton claims to have coined it during a presentation at Proctor and Gamble in 1999, but he also mentioned it in a Forbes interview in 2002. SnowdogU77 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Enterox IoT framework formerly known as Eraspaas provides capabilities such as protocol translation for example devices that communicate over MQTT protocol can connect with Enterprise System that communicate over web based protocols such as REST or SOAP; even legacy industrial automation devices that communicate over Modbus protocol can connect with new cloud based enterprise systems such as Microsoft Dynamics CRM or Enterox Enterprise Suite, that provide web based API. This technology is extremely useful for Enterprise Integration scenarios that involve integration with IoT devices - sensors, actuators and physical machines.

References

Arunav.net (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia mention Enterox? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Enterox IoT framework (formerly known as the Eraspaas framework) has a much longer history of research and development in Internet of Things than some of the companies mentioned in the framework section. It will be unfair to allow mention of other companies while not mentioning Enterox or Eraspaas. For the article to be unbiased, I have made the necessary edits to remove mention of other companies if the change is reverted then the proposed change about Enterox IoT framework and the unique approach in which it connects IoT devices with enterprise system by allowing data structure mapping and protocol translation should also be mentioned.

Arunav.net (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arunav.net: You just removed the other companies from that section. I think that was an improvement, and now as you say, no companies are there. That part seems resolved. Anything more? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Leading Text Needs Rewriting

I would suggest to scratch

   Bruce Sterling (are personal references necessary?)
   Josef Preishuber-Pflügl (are personal references necessary?)
   Pachube (already referred to under applications)

from the "see also" section. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by IoTCruiser (talk • contribs) 3 mei 2011 10:33‎ (UTC)

It's gibberish. Perhaps the Internet of Things itself is gibberish. I wish one could tell from reading the lead of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.22.127.117 (talk • contribs) 7 nov 2014 18:03‎ (UTC)

I made significant changes to improve the leading section. I removed many statements that were repetitive and rearranged some to improve the readability. Below are the statements I removed:

• Typically, IoT is expected to offer advanced connectivity of devices, systems, and services that goes beyond machine-to-machine (M2M) communications and covers a variety of protocols, domains, and applications. The interconnection of these embedded devices (including smart objects), is expected to usher in automation in nearly all fields, while also enabling advanced applications like a smart grid, and expanding to areas such as smart cities.

• Examples also include Smart cities, wearables like Apple watch, Fitbits for entertainment, fitness and health monitoring, Industrial automation for gathering of data for predictive analysis and for scheduling preventive maintenance.

• IoT is one of the platforms of today's Smart City, and Smart Energy Management Systems.

--Baumergrl (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Removing the Warning that the Lead Section is Too Long

I have made significant changes to the lead section and believe it is now an acceptable length for the article. --Baumergrl (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Restructuring

I believe the following measure to restructure the site will improve its readability and overall quality:

• Directly after the History of the IoT, add a section titled "Definition of 'Things'" that would encompass the definition and discussion of what qualifies as a part of the IoT.
  • Reviewed this section and for the time being, I believe that the definition doesn't need it's own section and should remain in the introduction. --Baumergrl (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• "The Unique Addressability of Things" section can be dissolved into the "Enabling Technologies for IoT" since it primarily discusses the use of IPv6. (Completed.--Baumergrl (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)) "Simulation" can also be absorbed into this section as it is primarily discussing the technology used for the testing phase of IoT.
• Applications has way too many headings. My suggestion is to combine and utilize subheadings so that it is condensed to:
  • Consumer Products - Smart Home, Wearables, Home Appliances, and likely more categories.
  • Enterprise - Business, corporate, marketing
  • Infrastructure management - Environmental, Agriculture, Corporate Uses
  • Other Applications (completed all of the sections above --Baumergrl (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC))
  • Research and Data Collection - this would be a new section that I feel needs to be addressed. This change will come after the existing data has been formatted and I will create a heading in this Talk page for everyone to discuss what could and should be included.
• "Government Regulation" and "Standards" can be combined into a new section called "Legal Considerations." This section is vital because with the rise of IoT there will be a quick expansion on the laws and legal precedences set for the use of IoT devices.

My plan is to continue working on this piece by piece and I'll be time stamping as I complete each bullet. Baumergrl (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. When adding new sources or reviewing existing sources, please make sure they are WP:RS, as this topic is covered by many superficially informative sources which are covert spam for commercial services. All content should be cited to reliable sources, and any subjective conclusions or predictions should be attributed to those sources. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate the link, I'll work towards getting higher quality sources for the page. --Baumergrl (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

History

Just reverted a big homework/essay by 105.48.215.211. A few interesting points, well referenced, but not in correct form and far too long. - Snori (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Good move, but for the record your description does not seem to match what happened. It looks like the IP blanked the article and replaced it with one paragraph, and you reverted that change. But good move. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Read the page history. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet of things. 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/20131024003031/http://www.techvibes.com/blog/from-m2m-to-the-internet-of-things-viewpoints-from-europe-2011-07-07 to http://www.techvibes.com/blog/from-m2m-to-the-internet-of-things-viewpoints-from-europe-2011-07-07

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) 15:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet of things. 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/20150311220327/http://web.media.mit.edu/~anjchang/ti01/weiser-sciam91-ubicomp.pdf to http://web.media.mit.edu/~anjchang/ti01/weiser-sciam91-ubicomp.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617134934/http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/377197/3/full to http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/377197/3/full

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) 03:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

This article is comprehensive and informative but a bit too long. Wonder if we can shorten it and move the more bulky parts to another article? Nice figures. I saw the mentioning of specific companies and products such as "Nest" and GE. Maybe another page on "Industry players and solutions in IoT" would be attractive to provide a more comprehensive spread of industries work? Abr1993 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The article is definitely too long, but I'm confused about your suggestions. Specific examples are barely mentioned and are well-integrated into the article, so how would this reduce the length? Further, "players" and "solutions" are both WP:BUZZWORDS. This article and topic already attract disproportionate quantities of spam, so any article about companies in the industry would need very strict inclusion criteria provided by reliable, independent sources to avoid becoming a spam-hole. You may find WP:SPINOFF helpful. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

IOT is really just the current hype word that covers what is really about 100 technologies and topics. And a word that encompasses half the world and which everybody wants to associate themselves with. Good luck in trimming this. If I were starting over, it would probably describe the common uses/ meanings of the term, have a little bit on the dozen technologies closely identified with it. And not a whole lot else. First to go would be listings of uses/ application. A good guide would be an article on something that is similarly ubiquitous and broad like the Internet. North8000 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Intro seems industry-written

Currently (06-Oct-18) the first paragraph in the intro describes the concept of the IoT, and ends by stating that the IoT ″[will result] in efficiency improvements, economic benefits, and reduced human exertions.″ There is no allowance for the inevitable law of unintended consequences. The IoT-related corporations are making "pie-in-the-sky" prophecies. I came here to find out what the acronym "IoT" stands for & so, can't comment on the rest of the article. Just saying the intro could use some qualifiers like: "The promoters of the IoT predict that it will result in in efficiency improvements, economic benefits, and reduced human exertion. Aimzzz (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That was pretty ugly. I have moved this material to the body for now. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Spelling should be lower case

Hi, internet of things is not a proper noun and should, therefore, be lower-cased. --EnOreg (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

After a week with no objections I fixed it. EnOreg (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The next step will be to move the article to the correct spelling. To this end, I've nominated the current redirect at internet of things for deletion. --EnOreg (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Move completed. --EnOreg (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Internet is a proper noun however, so it's normal when included in a larger noun to keep that part upper case. Done. I think it does need looking at per WP:COMMONNAME what the title is, checking against MOS as it is most commonly stylised in uppercase, which we need to at least say as such in the lede. (not yet done). Widefox; talk 10:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:MrOllie can you part revert [1] as at least "Internet" needs to be capital. I've only just fixed that, but your undo reverts without giving a reason (reason was for IP editor). User:Dawkeye please use this talk section as we're flipping between upper and lowercase, so would be worth reaching consensus here (see above). Widefox; talk 11:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "Note: In U.S. publications, the capitalized form Internet continues to be more common than internet, although the lowercase form is rapidly gaining more widespread use. In British publications, internet is now the more common form." [2]

WP:CAPITALIZATION says to follow normal spelling rules, not community preferences. Therefore, things is clearly lower case. --EnOreg (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your reasoning for capitalizing internet seems flawed here, as the internet of things and the internet are separate and distinct concepts (although obviously the former cannot exist without the latter). The consideration in this case should be "is 'internet of things' a proper noun?" rather than whether internet in isolation is a proper noun. I would argue it should be handled in the same way that one would handle writing other technologies like car phone, smartphone or tablet computer. --ClacTom (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

How is 'Internet of Things' not a proper noun? There is only one of it, as stated by this very article: "The Internet of Things (IoT) is the network of physical devices, vehicles, [...]" 2001:638:708:303:AA:6127:17E5:4E57 (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The letter "t" for the "Internet of things" tittle should be edited in capital letter. Immeasurable radiance (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

At present we have "Internet of things", "internet of things" and "Internet of Things" all in play in the article. We need to choose one of these and apply it consistently. I propose we find Internet of Things to be a proper noun because it probably is and because this lets us avoid the question of whether internet should be capitalized. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kvng: As an interim measure, all spellings should be standardised as "Internet of things" as it is how the article title is styled. Afterwards, a WP:RM could be opened. TeraTIX 23:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Teratix: unless a specific exception is made, the system automatically capitalizes the first letter of titles so "Internet of things" and "internet of things" would both be consistent with the title. ~Kvng (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kvng: I don't mind either 'Internet' or 'internet' as long as it's internally consistent. TeraTIX 02:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Teratix: go ahead and make a decision and make some edits. Consistency would definitely be an uncontroversial improvement. I personally would try to sort out whether IoT is a proper noun first. Actually I'm often wrong about titles so I try to let others sort it out and then follow along. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Update

While adding some information in the Architecture subsection of the Trends and characteristics section, I found that the bulk of the info was copy-pasted from this source (Traukina et al.). I did some editing to change the wordings and referenced the entries accordingly. However, I would like to note that the case could be the same in other parts of this article. I have not checked the entirety of this article because it is quite extensive and also I do not have access to the references used. Perhaps those who do could help in this area. Thanks. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Might be of interest

Obviously I can't add it (since it was my thing back then) but here's link to a story and a patent filed in 1994-5 for an early IoT device:

http://www.ajawamnet.com/amnet/index.html

Note the amount of references/citations to that patent... Wamnet (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

History

The MIT device to open the computer room door and call the elevator was operational in 1979, so predates the CMU coke machine. Lars Brinkhoff (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon [3] which details the invention of a digital language for networked devices around the home or office which began in 1975. I do not see any definition by which this should not be a key historical element in the Internet of things article. I considered that perhaps this omission was due to a strict adherence to devices communicating only to other devices without human involvement, but this makes no sense 1. because the x10 was used for home security sensors which would actively ping the alarm unit indicating an "all is well" signal to a receiving unit and 2. a great variety of the modern Iot devices actually necessitate human interaction and would be pointless in their absence. If I get no replies to this I will add the x10 history bit to the Iot article. --Luke Kindred (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Just bear in mind that this is its own network, which had no conection then to the Internet. - Snori (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Snori. While I can see your point, I also think that the way in which "Things" are accessing and utilizing the modern internet more closely resembles a Wide Area Network (WAN) and often a glorified LAN. Such as when you use a web based email account to send a photo to yourself in order to move a file from your desktop computer to the smartphone in your pocket, a large and rather complicated use of the internet for a function which could have been accomplished with much more simplicity and efficiency over a LAN. Thought provoking stuff.--Luke Kindred (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315614187_Optimizing_Mission_Critical_Data_Dissemination_in_Massive_IoT_Networks https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8360491. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 20200412- internet of things diagram.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LanceLam. Peer reviewers: LanceLam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 25 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vasquezmedia. Peer reviewers: RGrulich.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)