Talk:Internet generation

message: Are there any references for this neologism? --Madchester 07:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
: Track listing for the MC Lars CD that coined the term . I've yet to see it used online, though I've seen the term used in several magazines, but obviously can't provide a link to them sorry. --80.4.224.6 02:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At any rate, it's bordering on original research and has a strong POV to it. Alphax τεχ 01:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

message: I've got an idea- how about we change the internet generation to start at 1996 and keep it going until around 2008, and we can group everyone from 1986-1995 in 'The Echo Boom' generation, as children of the baby boomers, since there was another baby boom in that time. Echo boomers tend to be more closely associated with the Baby Boomers than the Gen Xers anyway, and I think this is a signifigant point, and will very possibly end most of the quarrell over this touchy subject. How about it?
Dan 
::OR, that's why. we dont get to define the term ourself, we are stuck with what other people use. DGG (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HOLD ON!

message: Article is heavily flawed, and not based on any proven fact. Also mis-states by saying this generation saw the birth and rise of the internet - the internet was born FAR before this generation - it's rise may have happened during this time, but birth, no way.
*Delete I'm for the deletion of this article. It has a bunch or pointless information and not enough facts to back up it's statements (the "MySpace generation"?). --AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Should this article go into the AfD's while we vote on it? I don't have much experience with deleting articles, so I just wanted to confirm that. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark for Deletion 

message: As a member of iGeneration, I thought it ought to be said that 9/11 is probably going to wind up being the defining event of our lives. While I know a lot of people will disagree, 9/11 changed everything. It also might be appropriate to mention the effects of such polorizing elections/political culture in the United States right now, in addition to talking about other current events. I know it's hard to guage where this generation is politically, but it would be good to at least mention some life-changing events.
I'm also a member of the iGeneration and i got admit, 9/11 kind of changed everything. It happened while we were still kids (or teens i guess) 9/11 should diffently be put in there.
Well since the terms generation Y and iGeneration apply to those born *outside* the US as well as those inside the US the majority of generation yer's would not experience the political ramifications of 9/11 in any substantial way that would act as the defining feature of the generation. I would hardly call the events that occurred 'lifechanging' to the whole generation, sure it happened but did it directly affect those outside the US as a 'lifechanging' incident. I'm sure since trends of apathy amongst this generation and becoming less 'ideological' and more materialistic and issue orientated society September 11 has little ramifications.
The effects of 9/11 will also be offset by the proclamations (within this article) of this generation being more detached and less interested in allegiances to their people and place. This is not my opinion, it's fact, it's on wiki. Nam was defining, Cold war was defining, WW2 was defining not 9/11 unless nothing happens of relative importance in the next 10 years.
The Internet will have a more profound shaping influence on world culture than 9//1, which only 'woke up' Americans to a reality of terrorism that millions of people live with every day in other parts of the world. Still, 9/11 may be the defining feature of the next generation, after the Internet generation.
This article lists the years of the generation as starting in 1994. These people would ahve been 8 or so when 9/11 happened. I doubt it affected them that much. I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who was 10 then, so I'm not that far away from it.  ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong 17:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 anybody? 

message: What is with this article. It skims through a load of issues that are part of the so called igeneration. Why is it even here?????
heee...
oh, i don't know. (ThirdPlateauDreamer 06:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic favor?? 

message: While I, a not-so-proud Gen Yer dislikes rap and emo, they are popular now in the mid-2000s and aside from indie stuff (which doesn't count for much IMO) they define Gen Y the way Grunge, Hair Metal and New Wave define Gen X.
Rap LOSING popularity since the early 2000s? R U kidding me?  2002/2003 is when it hit its current popularity; it was in somewhat of a slump between 1997 and 2001/02 because of Teen Pop. 
Today rap beats the early 90s in popularity.
2003-2005 are probably the best years rap has seen popularity-wise; the same can't be said for quality though.  That's 1987-1993 :)
That's great. If you can cite a source, you can put it into the article.--205.133.240.254 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rap and Emo ARE popular as of the mid-2000s

message: The Holocaust/WW2 references in this article are either completely out of place or just plain wrong and need to be rewritten and shortened. I'm not insinuating that a POV dispute over the fact that the Holocaust and WW2 were traumatic, terrible events that the generation described in the article will only experience through films, but the mention of Schindler's List et al is entirely unnecessary, as it's obvious the real Holocaust could not have been a formative experience for them, nor could any horrible part of history, I'm not sure why we have to single out certain things. For that matter, this also brings up a fallacy of the article, which is to assume that the lack of personal acquaintance with Holocaust survivors or WW2 veterans is hugely significant to a generation's outlook and furthermore that it's unique to the so-called iGeneration. Honestly, it's not as if such events had great significance for the previous two or three generations (Y, X, and baby boomers) either, although they may have been born very close to them and known people for their entire life who had participated or were victimized. That was the whole idea of the baby boomer/1960s culture-- they weren't defined by such things. The baby boomers born 55 or 60 years ago did not experience WW2 or the Holocaust either except through later stories told by others, or through media, and I suspect most people involved in these events did not talk about them much with their young kids. I'm not sure what the big difference is with regard to the Holocaust/WW2 between someone born in 1950 and someone born in 2000. Any way either of them experiences the things will be indirect. I was born way before this iGeneration (early '80s), and I never personally knew a Holocaust survivor, I learned from Schindler's List and from reading as well. [Yes, but woldn;t it possible for you to talk to one? vs. those being born now.  Is that a significant difference or not? Maybe, maybe not.]
These people are missing the entire 20th century. Let's not reduce it to specific wars or issues.
:I agree, that whole section seemed to be unnecessary and distort the flow of the text. Anyway, I was born in 1980, and also haven't known any holocaust survivor myself, although I met one for a history class in school, once. It was interesting, but the former commentors statement about its effect on world outlook seems justified. 81.232.72.148 01:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust and WWII references

message: i removed the list of famous people, as it is pointless and too celeb-centric  -Fabhcún 23:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of famous people 

message: I just categorized Generation V. I believe that article is synonymous with this or Generation Y. I am however not American and have very little knowledge about this subject so I leave it to you people to determine. Regards, Gardar Rurak 07:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation V notice 

message: I definitely support redirecting this article to Generation Y. iGeneration is definitely not the more common (see GoogleFight). [[Yes, but igeneration is an emerging terms, and the numerical difference is actually not that much, especially considering GEn y has been around longer; and isn't the point to make a distinction from Gen Y?] It is also a copy from the likes of iTunes, iPod, etc., which isn't very appropriate for a term that's supposed to be used by researchers, demographers, etc. (In this regard it's a lot like the term myspace generation.) The fact that it's a neologism from a mass-market product very particular to its time means that it is likely to be short-lived, and will date terribly. In comparison, Generation Y follows the very well-established term Generation X, suggesting it is likely to be more used by those in the field, and for a much longer time.
"Generation X" another media buzz word that came into vogue with Coupland's novel of the same name.  The people of that generation didn't say 'yes, that's us' any more than Generation Y.  I think a term that has something to do with the Internet is better than some abritrary letter.  The term is also there to put a marker in for what comes after Generation Y. One basic reasoning behind 'generations' in the first place is the idea of a shared cultural historical epoch that shapes identity in a way that is somehow generalizable: major historical events, changes in technology, etc.  I guess we have to ask outselves if there's any use to the term 'generation' at all.  if there is, does it make sense to start mapping out what follows Generation Y, or will it just be Y from here on in: turtles all the way down...  In four or five years, it may be 'obvious' that there is an emerging generation that cannot simply be lumped together with Y. The value of Wikipedia is that the article is endlessly revisable as new understandings of this 'thing' that may or may not be a 'generation' come into focus.  It makes sense to lump iGeneration, myspace generation, etc. together because they're essentially all provisional names for the same category of generation: something on the horizon after Y, which doesn't have much thinking behind it other than 'what comes after X.' 
This article also suffers a lot because it just doesn't receive the attention of the Generation Y article.
El T 12:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I support merging into Gen Y 

message: Although there was no conclusion to delete the article, it cannot remain the way it currently is. Most times sources are either unstated or not notable. For example, the infamous loli-boom/boomer comes up with few results on a Google query, of which most are unrelated or created by the originator of the term. I therefore marked the article for cleanup. Don Cuan 19:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and took out: references to the "Myspace" generation, iPod generation, and the paragraph about privacy.Anthonzi (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup notice 

message: Seriously...1985-1999?  What idiot decided that?  Also, this article assumes that most of us born in this timeframe have no recollection of life without the Internet?  Hell, I remember life without Microsoft Windows and I was born in 1987.  The Internet didn't become a full-fledged part of mainstream culture (i.e. everyone didn't have Internet access and used it heavily) until the mid-late 1990s (1994 at the very earliest).  Meaning that anyone born in the 1980s had to have some recollection of life without the Internet, unless they came from wealthy backgrounds.131.156.238.75 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Comes Up With These Idiotic Year-spans? 

message: Ditto here- I was born in 1990 and didn't have the internet until 2002. I remember when no one had even heard of the internet. And who says just because I was born in 1990 that I accept it as part of life? I hate the internet- I think it's screwed up the world more than anything ever before- look at terrorism, child molestors, the increased crime rates, and our increasing isolation from each other. You are correct, it seems like the generation should be something more like 1994-2006 or something, because most people didn't have the internet until the year 2000. What's next, the iPod generation? Come on!
Anyway, I think the year span should go along with the year of the public release of the internet, if this article is even going to stay here, - 1992. Why not group 1985-1991 with the Boomerang and 1992-2004 with the Internet? Makes more sense to me. But this article should probably just be grouped in with Generation Y.
**If you "hate the internet" then why the heck are you on it? Besides, no one forces you to look at any of the stuff on the internet, you find it all yourself.  If you don't like it, don't use it. Jackoff.**  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ditto 

message: Internet? Blah! That's funny! Most of my classmates say: "Technology is not my cup of tea." And what's Myspace?
Yes, but they've at least heard that The Internet exists...   Unlike your friend, those born in 1940 couldn't have heard of the Internet because it didn't exist yet.
I wanted to add to the page this sentence:
The iGeneration could become/could be seen as the name of the current style of late 90's early 2000. In which the "I", besides internet, can also be seen as the 'improved' individuality of products. Think about covers for telephones and iPod's and stylable sneakers. The machinal individuality of faded jeans is another example. This reflects the social change to people being more on there own (among others because of the internet but also other "i" products). (source for demographic proove needed)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.139.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet generation?

message: I think the name should be changed from iGeneration, it sounds to comercial and I know
many of this (my) generation who don't own an Ipod or use Myspace, I don't think these 
really define this generation. Besides there should be one collective generation from
1990-2000 or 1990-2010. All born or will be born during this period could be called 
the "Digital Generation" because of the mass use of electronics and computers by this
generation. Any support??? Please add comments. User:Editor=toast
Wikipedia documents, not decides.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.228 (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Grouping

message: This should stretch to at least 1989, maybe earlier, as the people born in 1989-93 were too young to remember the pre-Internet era and have grown up with the Net even more so then those born 1994- due to their longer involvement with it. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This generation should be expanded 

message: If we're in it right now how come it stops at 2001?
Rc Her 23:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  igeneration dating? 

message: I'd always thought, and discussed amongst my friends as, those born from 1990 into the early '90s as being The Simpsons Generation.  The internet, portable music devices, computer games and many other items that gained mass popularity in the '90s  were invented or had already existed for some time in the 1980s. However, one of the most  defining cultural icons of current western (or even more specifically English-speaking) culture - The Simpsons - was "born" on 17 December 1989. (Although Simpsons shorts had been shown on the Tracey Ullman show before that the Simpsons did not exist as a TV program in its own right until that date). Those children born in the early '90s shared the infancy with the show, and have never seen a week go by in their whole lives without an episode of the show on TV.
Anyway, just some musings from an apparently case-book Generation X-er, who moved to a big city at age 17, is single and living in a rented flat because holding down a steady job and a steady relationship at the same time requires too much effort, and who, on a sunny Sunday morning is lying on the lounge listening to Madonna because he's too lazy to put his Mac laptop on the floor and go outside and have a life...
Nvek 01:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think so. I've never seen an episode of the Simpsons in my life, depite being born in 1992. If we're going to define it by a TV show, why not Law & Order, which premiered in 1990. The audience of the Simpsons was, at it's greatest, around 20 million, which obviously would not include a whole generation. ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong 17:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah you see, this falls under Wikipedia:No original research. So no original research please.Anthonzi (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "''Simpsons'' Generation" 

message: Im putting this page up for deletion or this page should me merged with Generation Y. There is no point for this page. I was born in 93' and we didnt have internet for another decade. Just because something is popular now doesnt meen we can defy it by a generation. Now mybe generation z but not Y MarkDonna 20:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: either way is good. But  there are some ongoing afds that we might want to see the results of--perhaps in the meantime, place a suggested merge tag for this fringe theory/neologism. I notice that none of the RSs given seem to support this term. DGG (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there are real sources for the use of the term, deletion would be in order. DGG (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that this page should be deleted.  I don't see any of the content as notable.Anthonzi (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: As a member of this generation, I must say that the sense that this generation doesn't mind privacy loss due to the internet as completely false. personal data really isn't one's focus, on the contrary, the Internet is used mainly as a way to maintain real world contacts and get easy access to broadcasted  data, not access personal data on strangers. In fact, the aninimity of the internet allows  any sort of personal information to be completely hidden (like a minor clicking a "yes, I'm 18" link in order to gain access to porn)
In other words, that section of the article needs to be balanced out.--70.244.83.88 02:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kool, I agree.  Then I will go ahead and edit this out.  Feel free to argue for these statements, but I haven't seen anyone make a case.Anthonzi (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy 

message: There seems to be a page for this, yet they're both described as being pretty much the same thing. Looks like the authors of both are unaware of each other. Could someone perhaps link the two, or merge the smaller into the larger at the very least?
As a matter of personal taste, I prefer the term iGeneration, if only because it was (Likely) coined by someone who's a part of it, and not "The Media".
86.131.13.121 11:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation C 

message: Apparently many people here think their writer got it wrong. But that is personal opinion and individual  OR. We dont report our own opinions here, but the sources, and NY Magazine is a reliable source. If there  are other good sources contradicting it, add them. DGG (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref to NY Magazine

message: It might be a good idea, considering the notability of both is in question.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this and [[Google generation]]? 

message: These need sources. DGG (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: alternate names

message: I have now merged this article with Generation Z per the discussion on its talk page %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 05:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Merged