Talk:Internet/Archive 2

message: Am I the only one who thinks that we have much better things to sort out on Wikipedia (including on the internet page) than childish name-calling over capitalisation of a single word? --Cynical 22:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Even less important would be wasting time pointing out that we're wasting time. Nohat 23:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a question

message: I'm a new user here, so forgive any ettiquette breaches, etc, but I consider the grouping of sadomasochism in with things like suicide and necrophilia to be inapropriate and offensive.
Sadomasochism is a consensual activity, with many levels, not all of which actually result in any harm to any/all participants - let alone self distructive acts. (see the wikipedia article on sadism and masochism). The 'Deviant behaviours' label is likely to be very offensive to some, and probably doesn't uphold the NPOV principals.
Also grouping anorexia in with necrophilia is also a bit off imho, given that anorexia is widly regarded as a disease. Yes there are sites that encourage it (which, having a large amount of experience helping anorexics to overcome their problems I personally hate - but this is obviously not npov), but there are far more sites out there that take my view.
I suppose what I'm saying is that I think this one section should be split into about three sections, and possibly retitled (although I currently have no suggestions for an alternative).
Chris
:Good points, Chris, in my opinion.  Go for it!  Maybe test out your proposed new version here first - see if anyone's got any objections before replacing the real page stuff - if you're worried about the changes you're planning. (Oh, and sign your comments here with four tildes (or click the signature button) to get a full signature on the talk page) --Nigelj 21:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a think about how to organise it and phrase it and then post a suggestion here.
Chris 
Thryduulf 01:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The whole subsection is horribly non-NPOV. I've added a pov check at the top of the page, I suspect the whole problems section needs cleaning up: Figures like 1000% are conjured out of thin air (is the in the US? Globally? Based on what data?) and a lot of the language is strongly POV. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 05:44, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
I was the person who originally raised the self-destructive subcultures issue, although it's been greatly rewritten by other users and myself (look at all the numerous versions in this page's history).  The reason I grouped anorexia with necrophilia and apotemnophilia is that paraphilias by definition are also generally considered to be psychiatric disorders, just like anorexia nervosa.  The point I was originally trying to raise, though I think it was edited out at some point, was that the Internet highlights a key tension within the concept of free speech---that free speech presupposes that the recipients of such speech are fully rational and are able to make a calculated decision about the full impact of their actions not only on themselves but on those around them and those who care about them.  Also, I am aware that the notorious "pro-ana" sites are a minority of the total sphere of Web sites that deal with anorexia; the point of the new sub-subsection was to highlight that such sites even exist (since many newbies are still unaware of this issue).  
--Coolcaesar 10:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Apart from a few mentions of chat and messaging, most of the social issues and comments seem to be more about the Web than the Internet itself, so maybe should be in (or spun off from) the WWW article rather than this one.  I'm more of a techie myself, so I'm hoping for someone with more sociological knowledge to take this problem in hand, and be able to 'add value' while doing it. --Nigelj 14:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd definitely like to see it taken out of an article that's primarily about a technology, because the direction it's taking (see the latest addition about Linux geeks and LiveJournal bloggers) is degenerating into a litany of "those people are messed up". At the least it needs the kind of qualified reviewing that it might get in a sociology-focused article. Tverbeek 13:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that latest section is very POV and indeed offensive. Linux geeks and LJ bloggers are wide ranging groups of people, some of whom virtually live on teh interenet, someof whom don't. There are also many other groups who can take it a bit seriously at times, e.g. gamers, wikipedians, IRC users, MSN users, BB readers, usenet readers, slashdotters, etc, etc. In most people's case it isn't a problem. Thryduulf 14:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Introduced in 1991, the web in 1992 was about 26 websites, and became public domain in 1993,  in june 1993 there was 130 sites and 623 at the end of 1993. Which the point where people accord themselves to say that the mass médias discovered Internet and the web. We both agree on this, but instead of Since the early 1990s, it has been widely recognized that the Internet enables broader distribution of ideas that most people find distasteful, for such ideas condone (or justify) the infliction of violence upon innocent non-consenting people I would have preferred a more NPOV version, something like  In the end of early 1990s, mass medias described the Internet as a tool enabling people to discover cultures inside their own, upon which some would be considered distateful by public opinion in certain countries.. 
About me conflating (I looked), I think your text is conflating between a tool: the web, the Internet, and something capable of acting on its own. Are you confusing Internet and Internet usage by man ? Cause it is not Internet, but Internet usage by man that enables all that you are talking about. This is where relies the POV problem.
As one purpose of Internet is to make knowledge available to the most, and that includes knowledge you wouldn't have otherwise access to, so I hardly see your point in precising that upon all this knowledge is apotemnophilia. The creation of virtual communities around a specific point shared by some or most of its member is pretty frequent and is not specific to self destructive subcultres, which are nowhere to be seen in your clarification. Anyways this clarification does not solve the POV problem, although gives us directions about what you wanted to say with this. 82.66.65.136 19:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Imho its inapropriate for this article entirely. Written better to focus on generic vertical serach engines rather than specific ones nobody has heard of, it might be apropriate at the search engine article. Thryduulf 19:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-destructive subcultures 

message: I have had a go at redoing the section. My proposal is at Internet/Self-destructive subcultures (proposed). 
I am not claiming that it is NPOV yet, I have probably made it slightly POV in the other direction in places, and so it needs input from others before its ready for the main article (imho). Thryduulf 11:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Internet/Self-destructive subcultures (proposed)]]

message: I just removed the following text from the WWW section of the article:
DR Web said one day :What punk was to rock, the Web is to the Internet. 
The web produces new and exciting ways of accessing information and has since produced several specialist websites known as vertical search engines. Unlike traditional search engines like Google, these tend to specialize in one area, for example Totaljobs, whose search engine would only return information about job openings. One website that has gone a step further is Yumgo. Yumgo is what the future may be when it comes to accessing infomation as it enables users to group together all their various vertical search engines' preferences onto on page. This means it is possible to have Wikipedia, alongside other verticals like, IMBD, Yahoo, and Ebay. 
Who is this Dr Web we are quoting here?  Do we need to have a whole paragraph in the Internet article predicting the possible future success of a few web sites that most people have never heard of?  I think someone has been sneaking vandalism and spam in here 'under the radar' - then getting their spelling mistakes tidied up by well-wishing editors!. --Nigelj 18:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Imho its inapropriate for this article entirely. Written better to focus on generic vertical serach engines rather than specific ones nobody has heard of, it might be apropriate at the search engine article. Thryduulf 19:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV removal