Talk:World Wide Web/2006 major rewrite

message: Several wikipedians agree that the World Wide Web article needs a serious overhaul. This page aims to gather rough consensus on how it should be structured, what should be included/excluded/expanded/minimized, and where we can find the relevant bits and pieces. All improvement ideas are welcome, please share your thoughts here. -- JFG 04:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: would fill a whole book? ;-) I totally agree on de-emphasizing the technology aspects (Wikipedia is biased enough on tech), and because the current article does not say a word about using the web, we must start with basics: first the user experience, then what people do with it, history, culture, economy... However I chose to list the main enabling tech, towards the end, because the WWW article can be used as a reference springboard to delve into specific components. Detailed explanations on how it works could go to a separate page. -- JFG 23:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The Web is indeed a vast subject and Wikipedia eventually needs to include all the specialized angles you suggest, and more. I say, let's first write a proper naïve overview of reasonable quality, then deeper insights will follow. -- JFG 23:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Red, I am sorry if this hurts your feelings, but your putting in your two cents has sadly made quite a mess of the article's introduction.  Your contribution on 12 November 2006  to the first paragraph was neither profound nor accurate and was in gross violation of numerous Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.  Please limit your contributions on Wikipedia to articles in areas where you actually understand what is going on. I am challenging your edit at Talk:World Wide Web.--Coolcaesar 09:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the World Wide Web article 

message: The stuff above is a technologist's perspective on the Web, and ignores several subjects I think important.
But if we put all the stuff I want into the article, it
:would fill a whole book? ;-) I totally agree on de-emphasizing the technology aspects (Wikipedia is biased enough on tech), and because the current article does not say a word about using the web, we must start with basics: first the user experience, then what people do with it, history, culture, economy... However I chose to list the main enabling tech, towards the end, because the WWW article can be used as a reference springboard to delve into specific components. Detailed explanations on how it works could go to a separate page. -- JFG 23:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Web is indeed a vast subject and Wikipedia eventually needs to include all the specialized angles you suggest, and more. I say, let's first write a proper naïve overview of reasonable quality, then deeper insights will follow. -- JFG 23:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Red, I am sorry if this hurts your feelings, but your putting in your two cents has sadly made quite a mess of the article's introduction.  Your contribution on 12 November 2006  to the first paragraph was neither profound nor accurate and was in gross violation of numerous Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.  Please limit your contributions on Wikipedia to articles in areas where you actually understand what is going on. I am challenging your edit at Talk:World Wide Web.--Coolcaesar 09:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion