Talk:Global village

message: McLuhan & Fiore's book from 1967 is called "The Medium is Massage" not "Message."
142.109.3.10 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I took out "minorities" in the following quote about the digital divide as it represents an U.S.-centered view. Presumably the writer was talking about non-whites though on a Global scale, whites are not a majority. 
"if not all people are connected to the Internet equally (notably minorities and the economically disadvantaged) and those that lack web access are excluded from global news and participating in online communities, then modern communication technology does not truly promote a Global Village as McLuhan described it for all people."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.127.2 (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Minorities" 

message: I don't think that the Global Theatre section of this article is necessary, or at least it needs to be changed. If the article talked more about the importance of the switch from the term "Global Village" to the term "Global theatre" then the section would make more sense. The fact that McLuhan said that the Internet "turns the globe into a repertory theater to be programmed" by its participants (McLuhan 1970, 9–10) explains the switch better and should be included. Madisonbates (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: partial Support I haven't read McLuhan's books, as I just discovered his entries today, but I would say the distinction is that the term Global Village existed before the Internet existed.  McLuhan may be referring to Television and Radio as the replacement for oral traditions (bards, storytellers, etc). So there is a distinction.  However, I would argue that Global Village (internet) be a subheading for Global Village (term). --Vorik111 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, McLuhan's treatment would be a section of an article on Global village (term). --ZimZalaBim talk 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no objections have been raised, I will merge these articles. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I just had this chat on Facebook - so this is not original research, but referencing is hard!
Markus Petz I look at Wikipedia for the term Global Village - it is poorly defined and even more poorly referenced. I am sure that the meaning has changed. My understanding is originally it meant the village was connected to the whole word so it was GLOBALIZED. An...See More
1 hr · Like
Franz Nahrada Well for me this IS clarified. I once received a very kind letter from Corinne McLuhan (late wife of M.McLuhan) applauding our daring redefinition of the term. She said that in the ultimate consequence McLuhan saw the development of the "Global Village" into a "Globe of Villages". "The globalisation of information and knowledge, when brought to its full expansion, will reverse into an unprecedeted renaissance of the local". (I do not have the quotation and the letter handy, its lost somewhere in tons of paper at the hotel, but this was to my best knowledge one of the best and most meaningful support and affirmation letters I ever received in my life and really this gave me the courage to start the Global Villages Network).
56 mins · Unlike · 1
Franz Nahrada McLuhan used the term in both senses, and as you see he added a third. There is a great book on the GLOBALIZED Village by Christa Müller (Von der Lokalen Ökonomie zum Globalisierten Dorf). The Globalized Village is the opposite of what we envision as the Global Villages!
53 mins · Like
Franz Nahrada The first effect of the connection to the world was destruction.
53 mins · Like
Franz Nahrada I also learned that McLuhan was a lover of terms that could have several meanings 
38 mins · Unlike · 1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.205.152 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Village has several definitions from McLuhan! 

message: Vincostantino (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations needed 

message: Vincostantino (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: The computer organized people into an attached community in which they are physically not connected but, mentally. It argues that media ecology and new media have unlimited the opportunity for who can create and view media texts.[11] Since mass media has been in effect, this has called for the westernization of the world hence the global village.  Without the mass media in effect countries like India or Turkey wouldn’t be living American lifestyle because they wouldn’t have the knowledge of what we acquire in our nation. Since most of the developing countries acquired the news and entertainment from developed nations like the U.S, the information received is biased in favor of developed nations which connects the world in similarities within the media.[12]
In Marshall McLuhan’s time the global village wasn’t 24/7. Now with social media, people are constantly commenting on each other’s posts as well as creating them to share with the multi-media global world.  55 percent of teens possess a social media profile.[13] Social media has connected people with jobs that they couldn’t have received before because of their geographic location.[14] New social media has connected the world so cultures can be learned through interactions on social media as well as maintaining relationships from opposing countries.[15]Vincostantino (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Media 

message: Global village is an environment where people from all over the world are connected as society(social media) 103.113.148.232 (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is global village?? 

message: The world is not a global village, because I think all the countries in the world have neither the same language nor the same color nor the same race. Then how did the world become a global village? 58.65.220.22 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  World not a Global Village