Talk:Internet/Archive 3

message: Please correct. --Dtcdthingy 15:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Internet" is obsolete 

message: * Talk:Internet – Internet ? internet – (NB I know technically this doesn't require the page to actually move, but this still seems the most appropriate forum to bring it up) Whatever the gramattical/practical arguments, "Internet" with a capital letter is already an archaic convention and has never been used by the vast majority of its users. Here's a short Wired article on the topic.
:: Support — Dtcdthingy 09:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oppose. Unique instances are capitalised. A sun is a star; the Sun is teh star we orbit. A moon is a celestial body; the Moon orbits the Earth. A web is a network; the Web is where Wikipedia lives. An internet is a computer network; the Internet is what we're using. Since when were Wired magazine arbiters of the English language? How (and by whom) was this "vast majority" counted? Andy Mabbett 10:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Except certain leaders of global superpowers.  —Michael Z. 2005-06-17 05:41 Z
*Oppose. The Internet was created in the United States, and nearly all of the underlying technologies were developed in the United States. In American English grammar, Internet is a proper noun, which means it should be capitalized.  The vast majority of American publications continue to refer to "the Internet" — see my previous research contribution to the earlier version of this same discussion above. ICANN, the Internet Society, and the Internet Engineering Task Force continue to refer to "the Internet" as well.  American English has grammar and style rules that are much more strict than most other dialects of English, especially with regards to capitalization.  In my opinion, the 290 million speakers of American English have the prerogative on how to describe the network their government invented!  --Coolcaesar 21:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: It appears that every marginal web business (you know, the kind who's business plan depends on generating popups rather than displaying actual content) wants a link from this page, presumably for PageRank purposes.
I suggest that a site should only be linked from this article (in the general links section) if it meets at least one of these three criteria:
1. It is authoritative; e.g. it is a well-known and respected archive of RFC documents. The link to the ISOC site comes into this category.
OR
2. It illustrates, demonstrates, or further explains specific points of article content. The link to Hobbes Internet Timeline fits in here.
OR
3. It is otherwise genuinely useful to someone who would read an encyclopedia article called "Internet". The internet statistics links would fit in here (although perhaps we don't need so many of them?)
Lastly I'd suggest we should avoid duplication. If two sites cover essentially the same material, we should think very hard about whether both links should be kept or if the poorer one can be dropped. For instance, we currently have two links to two different "show my IP" sites. I think this (marginally) qualifies under (2) above (although perhaps it would be better on the IP article, since this article doesn't actually discuss IP addresses at all). But we sure don't need two of them.
I have already deleted some links which in my opinion are clearly poor quality:
Silly number of gaming links (gaming is a very minor topic in this article)
* Internet Gaming Servers / Counterstrike
* Internet Gaming Leagues and Tournaments
* Game Modding Listing
Out of date statistics
* Infoquest! : links to different Internet surveys and statistics
News sites with no original content (but lots of ads)
* Internet hosting 
* News About Internet Communications Services
Borderline kookery
* The Internet as a new mass medium
Thparkth
:Good work.  I agree with your suggested policy.  I've pruned some more.
* Show your IP address, * Show your IP address
, * provides information about your computer relating to the internet.
All of these are IP address viewers(some with other "about your computer"-type info - the article does not talk about IP addresses, and IP viewers are a dime a hundred - we could add a google link if it is really necessary.
* http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/traffic_patterns/article/0,,5931_3099471,00.html and http://news.earthweb.com/stats/print.php/3096031,  - Two copies of the same 2003 stats, vast piles of ads, source is Nielson/NetRatings, so it may be available direct, in any case.
(forgot to sign) JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  External links need to provide material that adds value to the article, and should not be added by their controller, if there is opposition.  I find your persistence in trying to "do Wikipedia a favor" after that favor has been rather strenuously, but mostly politely, refused, to be quite odd.  In any case, this should be discussed at Talk:Internet. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links Policy 

message: can someone tell me how do you clear the list on search engines when you look for something?
Pece Kocovski 07:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Hi 
I see that India and China are included in the list where the majority of the population has internet access. Does majority mean more than 50 percent ? Looking at http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/internet/population.html (outdated stats from 2000) India and China don't figure in the above 30% list. Has the growth been that sharp in India and China from 2000 to 2005 ?
-Kghose 14:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: no. For India & China, the pencentage of internet access in population is probably less then 25%. In China, for some regigions such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Shanghai... it's probably above 70%, but in rural areas, almost zero. Xah Lee 03:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Net access list stats 

message: USA has laws about nudity, any photos that may be thought of as “underage” sexuality, the censorship of encryption codes... See the internet censorship article... and of course, the censorship of publishing bomb making etc. Xah Lee 03:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that case every country on the planet censors the 'net - why single out the US? Seems like you are just trying to make a point. The other two countries mentioned make a particular point of restricting access to the certain web pages and even cached Google content. Since when did the USA do that? --PhilipO 14:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, then aren't you being selective? What makes you to be the judge of the type and severity of censorship? The word censorship does not mean Speaclized Censorship. For example, in much of Europe, you can have nudity just about everyday life on the web. (car ads, etc.) But in US, you can't. Even the full article of wikipedia on censorship listed USA. Please check that. Xah Lee 04:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Xah Lee, I am not certain what you mean. It is certainly possible to access nudity on the Web in the United States. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, some U.S. states, like California, have some of the most liberal policies on free speech in the world.  See Pruneyard Shopping Center and San Fernando Valley for more information.  --Coolcaesar 21:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship countries 

message: Perhaps someone can find out the web page codings...for example, <img>... and make an artical, or at least some sort of list, about it. I just think it would be helpful to those trying tomake their own web page. -Dr.Cribbit (message posted by editing the page)
:No, that would not be in compliance with Wikipedia's editorial policies.  This issue has already been heavily debated many times and the consensus has been that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (which tries to comprehensively describe things) and not a how-to guide.  If you want to draft such an explanatory article on Web markup elements, the appropriate location for that would be Wikibooks.  --Coolcaesar 00:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article you want is here, Dr Cribbit, called HTML element. --Nigelj 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article suggestion 

message: I just reverted a very subtle edit by Nigelj, in an apparent attempt to upset the delicate consensus that was reached back in mid-summer.  His edit would have omitted the fact that "Internet" is both the traditional usage and the majority usage (I just checked the major periodical databases again to reconfirm this), and left article readers with only the impression that the issue is up in the air (without indicating which was the traditional usage). --Coolcaesar 21:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: <smells google>  What's your 'major periodical database?' markmtl 24.202.31.120 12:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't like being labelled 'deceptive' by this man in his edit summary, when I clearly stated my intentions in mine; but what can you do? --Nigelj 10:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet v. internet redux 

message: Presently, the first sentence reads: "The Internet, or simply the Net, is the worldwide system of interconnected computer networks which makes information stored on it accessible."  I find the final clause, beginning with "which," to be confusing.  The internet makes accessible the information stored on what?  On other computers.  I think it would be improvement to write, "which makes data stored on one computer in the world accessible to others."  
Further, I think the internet does much more than make available stored data.  More generally, I would say it makes possible the exchange of data.  Thus, I think a further improvement would be, "which makes possible the exchange of data between geologically distant computers."
:I just figured out how the first sentence was screwed up.  In this edit , the anonymous user at IP address 72.240.78.211 split what was one sentence into two sentences.  The original sentence was "The Internet, or simply the Net, is the publicly accessible worldwide system of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using a standardized Internet Protocol (IP) and many other protocols."  I believe the original sentences was much more comprehensible and I am switching back to that version.  The 72.240.78.211 user was grossly incorrect in stating that parts of the Internet are not publicly accessible.  
:After all, if a network is not publicly accessible over the Internet (meaning that it is a closed network like the various military networks), then it is not part of the Internet even if it uses Internet protocols internally.  The whole point of the term Internet is to refer to its very character as an internetwork of networks.  --Coolcaesar 06:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  first sentence confusing 

message: Would someone please add a mention of the IANA to the article? I'd research it myself, but… Wikipedia is a huge time-suck as it is :) — mjb 01:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to rework the sumary section I created for the Internet standards bodies at History of the Internet#NIC.2C InterNIC IANA and ICANN --Barberio 03:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IANA 

message: "In the Western world, it is Germany that has the highest rate of censorship. Internet Service Providers are required by law to block some sites that contain child pornography or Nazi or Islamist propaganda."
This is just wrong. ISPs are not forced to block these sites, but the state can and will file a lawsuit against the owner. I can access every internet site. If you don't believe me tell me a site, you don't think I can access because my ISP would have to block it and I'll email you a screenshot
neverpanic
*Is there a chance we could get a verifiable source on this information? Also the tone of your edit is bad, you may be annoyed but the article shouldn't sound that way. Also if you could regester it would be nice. Drn8 17:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong information 

message: The critisism is not of the Internet, but of weblinks. Benn Newman 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Also, we already had a section for criticism of the Net, which was taken out precisely because many people thought it was POV (just scroll up this page) although I thought it should have stayed.  The consensus is to NOT have a criticism section! --Coolcaesar 23:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Criticism */  merge|World Wide Web 

message: From World Wide Web:
According to a 2001 study [6], there were more than 550 billion documents on the Web, mostly in the "invisible Web". A 2002 survey of 2,024 million web pages [7] determined that by far the most Web content was in English: 56.4%; next were pages in German (7.7%), French (5.6%) and Japanese (4.9%). A more recent study [8] which used web searches in 75 different languages to sample the Web determined that there were over 11.5 billion web pages in the publically-indexable Web as of January 2005.
Does this conflict with the information given under the Language section on this site:
After English (32 % of web visitors) the most-requested languages on the world wide web are Chinese 13 %, Japanese 8 %, Spanish 6 %, German 6 % and French 4 %. (From Internet World Stats)
I'm unsure whether the way I'm interpreting 'most requested' is preventing me from seeing something obvious. :)
Also, there's inconsistent capitalisation of Web/web/World Wide Web/world wide web/etc.
I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'd prefer to just point it out and get some opinions, rather than dive in and change things.
--wht.rbt 11:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're probably both right - the 2001/2 studies were of the apparent or main languages used in the documents surveyed.  The Internet World Stats are much more recent (2005) and refer to the requested or preferred language of the users or readers of WWW material.  These latter figures are based upon the fact that web browsers send the logged-on user's preferred language as part of almost every web page request.  This normally defaults to the selected desktop language on the client machine, but can be set independently in some cases (e.g. Firefox). Note that in both cases these only refer to web usage - it would be much harder to work out language use in other internet applications such as chat, email, file-sharing etc. --Nigelj 20:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies on language usage b/w Internet and World Wide Web articles. 

message: should we not mention the semantic web over here?... 
1st generation
2nd generation: now
3rd generation: semantic web..
:No, the Web is not the Internet. Benn Newman 17:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Please do not mix up the two!  --Coolcaesar 20:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semantic web

message: I've been watching it for a while and now I am convinced that this section is propagating the old confusion re internet/WWW.  What it talks about is buying and selling on the web, without a doubt. --Nigelj 11:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsure - ecommerce on the Internet is more than the Web; it includes B2B EDI protocols, and it includes the delivery of stuff over the Internet, such as p2p. But I wouldn't mind - it adds very little value to the article, which is plenty long enough. Alvestrand 11:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Marketing' section - merge|World Wide Web 

message: It's a shame there's nothing in this article about Internet population or demographics. Or possibly that's a new article. Johnh 05:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population or demographics? 

message: Future trends ideas (suggestions): 1. On demand resources like application when high speed networks and larger servers are available 2. Distributed variable space and resource available at each operating system connected to internet to compute or share resources managed by a new internet layer based on criticality and priority of resources and computation to be shared
Neil Harwani
:I don't think a future trends section is appropriate.  This issue has been debated many times in the context of many, many Wikipedia articles and the consensus is that such speculation is generally inappropriate as it violates the No original research policy.  The obvious exception is for paraphrasing of widely held beliefs about future trends as articulated by prominent futurists (and backed up with appropriate citations).  --Coolcaesar 06:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a similar note, I've been wondering if there should be an article on the End of the Internet, detailing scenarios in which the Internet is no longer a viable medium. I remember in the early days talk about IPv4 address exhaustion and an entropy-related "heat death" of sorts in which there are so much active connections eventually lag the Internet to the point it becomes unusable. Recently, and what made me consider this as an article was, in light of BellSouth trying to extort Google by reducing the speed of traffic to their site, there has been talk, such as this article in The Nation, about greed between companies tearing the open and free worldwide web into a privately run, branded services localized around regional networks. --YoungFreud 13:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future trends 

message: I've had to comment out two links to livinginternet.com as they have upset the spam filter for some reason. I don't know why (it looks a good site from my superficial investigation), so I'll investigate further. See also m:talk:Spam blacklist. Thryduulf 11:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just added the lnk in the references again, and it now works. Very odd. Thryduulf 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Living Internet

message: I don't know why this article ignores Al Gore...he's AL GORE! He invented the internet...without him, none of you would be here on wikipedia.
Al Gore is one of the greatest men of the last two decades for creating the internet.  Its too bad that you and old Floridian jews can't see that.  *sigh*
165.123.186.179 21:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell us your source for the claim that Al Gore "invented" the internet. I think you'll find it quite difficult :) Eurosong 22:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  All reputable published sources agree that if the Internet was invented by any particular person, the persons responsible are Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn. --Coolcaesar 01:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AL GORE

message: It is often stated that the internet was not created for military communication lines to remain open in case of nuclear attack.  In a very limited sense this is true.  This is only true to the extent that the idea for the internet was a civilian idea. At MIT Leonard Kleinrock published the first paper on packet switching networks in 1961 called Information Flow in Large Communication Nets. As the main article here already says, in 1958, the USSR's launch of Sputnik spurred the U.S. to create the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to regain a U.S. technological lead.  It should be noted this was a defense project.  Defense against what?  The USSR. What did we need to defend ourselves against?  Nuclear attack.  Sputnik was thought by the military as a first step to launch nuclear weapons from space.  It was not simply a desire to be more advanced technologically such as the race between the US and Japan for superior technology.  This was about Defense.  Don't be naive.  In the same year that Leonard Kleinrock published his paper (1961), there were several meetings with the US Air Force by the Rand Corporation about the viability of creating the internet. Written by Paul Baran (see main article here to see who he is) "Various aspects of the concept as reported in this Memorandum were presented before selected Air Force audiences in the summer of 1961 in the form of a RAND briefing (B-265), and contained in RAND Paper P-2626, which this Memorandum supersedes."  These memorandums were published and are available for free on the internet where it states "The present Memorandum, the first in the series, introduces the system concept and outlines the requirements for and design considerations of a digital data communications system based on the distributed concept, especially as regards implications for such systems in the 1970s. In particular, the Memorandum is directed toward examining the use of redundancy as one means of building communications systems to withstand heavy enemy attacks."  -- 
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM3420/RM3420.preface.html.  Creating the internet took money and that money came from the military. In October 1962 Licklider was appointed head of the DARPA information processing office, part of the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The military has tried to water down the media hype, but the fact still remains, this article starts with DARPA, a military defense organization and yet this article refuses to conclude that the internet, although conceived of by civilians, was not powered by the money from the military in an attempt, to quote Paul Baran, "to withstand heavy enemy attacks."--Voyajer 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Funded by the U.S. government, the ARPAnet became a series of high-speed links between major supercomputer sites and educational and research institutions worldwide"; "The Internet was founded on a simple vision: to build a highly decentralized and resilient worldwide network infrastructure that would scale and that could resist any denial-of-service attacks." [my emphasis added in both quotes].  I haven't taken the time to dig back to contemporary source documents, but what I'm saying is well-documented common knowledge.  I think what Voyajer may be thinking of above actually became the "digital battlefield" or whatever they call their current military comms system.  Both end-products depend on packet-switching, routers, limited-range broadcast packets and lots of other common tech. Why would the US Miltary pay for such a thing for their own use and survival, then let everyone else use it too?  The answer is that at that time the technology was emerging and lots of people worldwide were thinking how to apply it in their problem-space.  Some of the early R & D was probably done in common, but the thing the military wanted became the digital battlefield, and the thing academia wanted became the internet, and commerce soon piggy-backed onto the internet - but (thank God) they've not been allowed to buy it or own the rights to any of it. Yet. --Nigelj 18:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet and nuclear attack

message: In the Malfunctions and attacks section, there is alink to 2003 North America blackout - August 14, 2003. I flipped through this article, and found no mention of anything internet-related a a cause of the blackout. Unless some wikipedian is, contrary to the evidence, taking credit for this incident, I don't understand what it is doing on this page. Shaggorama 08:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  blackout 

message: The section on the physical structure of the Internet was unclear. There was no section. I'd like to know how exactly my computer accesses the network, whick is routed to another network, and so on. Please include an example of data transfer from Wikipedia to an ISP, then a home computer. I really think this would help.70.25.138.179 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Structure? 

message: A huge part of the internet and its most common use (majority of people's use) is simply for communication (email/im/chatroom/myspace/etc.), and this issue is kinda ignored by the article, don't know if anyone agrees that there should be a section for this (or maybe this is the wrong article for it), perferably including a www.bash.org link when mentioning the idiocy that sometimes arises from this form of communication.
Qballony 08:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Communication 

message: ::12:49, 2 March 2006 Computerjoe m (Reverted edits by Biederman to last version by 2dogs) 
::12:48, 2 March 2006 Biederman m (Revert edit by 2dogs - see Interweb for explanation of "teh intarweb" - I think you broke it ;-)) 
::12:37, 2 March 2006 2dogs m (changed teh to the intarweb to interweb) 
"Teh intarweb" is a deeper parody than "the interweb".  As is explained in the Internet article, public confusion between the Internet and the 'Web is often parodied by such phrases as "teh intarweb".  See Interweb, to which Intarweb redirects, for an explanation that "intarweb" is a deliberate mis-spelling. "Teh" is also a deliberate mis-spelling.  See Teh and L33t.  Perhaps using both "teh intarweb" and "the interweb" would be best?  I don't wanna change again w/o consensus.  How 'bout:
::The confusion between these two by the general public is often parodied by phrases such as "the interweb" and "teh intarweb", as in "You broke teh intarweb!".
Biederman 21:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the "Interweb" concept needs to be discussed in the first paragraph (with either spelling), as it may further confuse newbies who come to Wikipedia looking for clarity, not confusion.  Furthermore, the term is not generally used in the mainstream media by reputable publications or well-known television shows.  A single show on Comedy Central, while interesting, does not have the same cultural impact as Saturday Night Live, which is well-established and reaches a much larger audience.  Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.  --Coolcaesar 04:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Teh Intarweb" vs "The Interweb" 

message: I just removed the following three paragraphs, added earlier today.  I don't want to 'bite the newbies', but I really think this is mostly personal experience and in-jokes, and so not of widespread or encyclopedic importance.  Furthermore, most of this is actually about the WWW, not the internet, so was in the wrong article, and further adds to the confusion over the two terms.  Lastly the 'joke' in the last para is really quite offensive, and is certainly not in widespread use.
Begin removed text
Because of some of the Internet's major uses and limitations, physical contact for example, some on-going jokes about the web have been spawned. O RLY, Interweb, and the Internet is for porn are a few examples of more widely known jokes about the Internet. "The Internet is for Porn" is a song from Avenue Q that tells the character Kate that although regular users of the net perform common activities such as online auction, stocks and trades, and research, its main purpose is searching for erotic material to masturbate to.
In response to the large amount of porn involving childhood memories Zoom Out Webcomics drew a comic strip that is commonly known as 'Internet Rule #34'. The rule is that there is porn of everything and nothing is excluded from this rule. The comic shows the character Yokai viewing a computer monitor in shock. The viewer infers that he sees an image of Calvin and Hobbes performing some type of sexual act. The bottom of the comic states that the Internet has been raping your childhood since 1996.
Disagreements in chatrooms or forums may sometimes get serious to the point that users will make threats of bodily harm or death. Because one cannot actually damage a person on the Internet some have publicly made wishes along the lines of "God, please grant me the ability to hurt someone over standard TCP/IP. Amen." A common phrase used when an Internet argument begins is "Arguing on the Internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded." An image was created to go along with this sentence showing a chubby boy running on a track field with his arms outstreched. The order in which the phrase and picture were created is unknown and it is possible that the phrase came from the original image.
End removed text --Nigelj 20:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humour section 

message: According to a paper published in early 2005, the size of the internet in January 2005 was 11.5 billion pages. Should we include that information in the article?
Is there a more recent update on the size of the net and its growth?
:That's the size of the World Wide Web, not the Internet.  The Internet is much more than the Web, as any computer science professional knows.  The Internet includes all the other application protocols that run on top of the TCP/IP stack, not just HTTP (the Web protocol).  There's streaming video/audio, email, instant messaging, file transfers, Internet Relay Chat, etc.  Please do more research before making a fool of yourself!  --Coolcaesar 18:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Size" of the internet 

message: The article says:
"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the authority that coordinates the assignment of unique identifiers on the Internet, including domain names, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, and protocol port and parameter numbers."
Protocol and port numbers are assigned by IANA. Even though IANA is a operated by ICANN, it would be worth mentioning IANA in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.69.121 (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ICANN and IANA

message: The list of most used languages on the Internet is outdated. According to the link you provide the most used languages on the Internet are as follows:
Top Ten Languages Used in the Web
( Number of Internet Users by Language )
 
 
TOP TEN LANGUAGES
IN THE INTERNET
 Internet Users
by Language
 Internet
Penetration
by Language
 Growth
in Internet
( 2000 - 2008 )
 Internet Users
% of Total
 World Population
for this Language
(2008 Estimate)
 
English
 1000
 36.2 %
 218.4 %
 0 %
 1,247,862,351
 
Chinese
 321,361,613
 23.5 %
 894.8 %
 20.4 %
 1,365,138,028
 
Spanish
 121,993,069
 29.8 %
 571.0 %
 7.7 %
 408,760,807
 
Japanese
 94,000,000
 73.8 %
 99.7 %
 6.0 %
 127,288,419
 
French
 72,720,214
 17.6 % 
 496.1 %
 4.6 %
 414,043,695
 
Portuguese
 72,555,800
 29.7 %
 857.7 %
 4.6 %
 244,080,690
 
German
 65,243,673
 67.7 % 
 135.5 %
 4.1 %
 96,402,666
 
With Portuguese surpassing German already .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.169.67.134 (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: The logical boundary of Internet depends on the type of IP address you set to a network element, server or host. If the network element/server/host has a public IP address and it has a physical connection, so this host is part of Internet, on the other hand, if the network element/server/host has a private IP addres, even if it has a physical connection, it does not belong to Internet. ( Abel L.M.O) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.116.224 (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Logical Boundaries

message: At the end of the history section there is credit given to Cisco, Protean, and Juniper as enabling growth of the internet.  Since Juniper wasn't founded until 1998 this doesn't follow in the timeline, or my memory.  The big router companies were Cisco and Wellfleet in those early internet days.  Wellfleet turned in Baynetworks and then Nortel. Techmum (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Routers?

message: The following seems a bit fishy to me...
"Sites like meetup.com exist to allow wider announcement of groups which may exist mainly for face-to-face meetings, but which may have a variety of minor interactions over their group's site at meetup.org, or other similar sites."
[Copied from the "Social Impact" section of the page]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.49.206 (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising?

message: Professor David L. Mills is cited in this article for his contributions and his "fuzzball" router.  However there is no link from his name to his page.  You'll find him listed here:  Afterburn188 03:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct information by adding link

message: Wasn't the Internet a British invention? I'll edit this page with the info I found later, im going to put the info into words that other people can understand... Garfunkle20 11:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to seeing your information. Stephen B Streater 18:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially since the only possible contributor on the British side of the pond was Donald Davies, who was English.  And Davies' contributions were more on the theoretical side; as far as I know, he didn't actually do hands-on work on the IMPs or on the TCP/IP protocol stack itself.  The key people are Licklider, Taylor, Kleinrock, Engelbart, Cerf, Kahn, etc.  --Coolcaesar 19:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my mistake. The article I read was about Boolean expressions. I dont know where I got that it contributed to the making of the internet, mabye with the exception of Scripting languages... Garfunkle20 13:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for checking before you put it up on the main article. Stephen B Streater 13:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I caused any hard feelings. I really should have read the article carefully. Hey! Gimmie a break! Im 16! Garfunkle20 14:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Without several dozen other things, none invented by the British, it wouldn't be possible either :)
Exactly that would be like sayin the Sumerians invented it, since it wouldnt exist without writing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.65.126 (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Invention 

message: Isn't this Charles A. Petrik just a figment of someone's imagination? i.e. vandalism? I'm removing him. (Rajah 04:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he is indeed a hoax (which seems exceedingly likely), then I guess he'll be no more real over at Ronald Pelton. I'll go remove him. --Ashenai 04:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles A. Petrik 

message: It seems to me that this article could use a picture of the internet. I was thinking either:
A: a big nice picture of planetary bandwidth/connections, etc.
B: A picture of the standard flowchart representation of the internet, a cartoon storm cloud that says "the internet", possibly with lightning.
Any thoughts?
--Zzthex 04:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the internet 

message: so who owns the internet and how much is it worth?? imagine if someone else bought it... it would be billions! 203.211.75.42 06:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment's not too bright.  There are several reasons the Internet could never have been created or owned by one person, starting with the issue of the initial capital costs. Please see Project Xanadu. --Coolcaesar 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh?  Not sure what you're getting at; it was invented by a project funded by the US military and grew well beyond their expectations.  The backbones are owned, as is the cable connecting everything, other than that though I'm not sure who can claim ownership of what.  Gtadoc 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The part about other governments being concerned certainly seems to be true. Even then, ICANN doesn't really own the internet, but has a lot of power at their fingertips opening up opporturnities for (possibly malicious) meddling. One could argue that even at the hands of the UN someone could meddle with the internet, but I guess some people may view it as an "equal opportunity" for meddling as opposed to just a one-sided one. --0imagination (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ownership and value 

message: I don't think any form of Internet censorship exists in France. It is unlawful to sell nazi memorabilia in France, but there is no difference in doing so online versus offline. As far as I am aware, the French government does not block information on the Internet in any way. --194.109.232.21 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is censorship because a French citizen can get an enforceable court order to require an online company doing online auctions in France to police all auctions for Nazi-related material, and to remove such auctions whenever it finds them.  That was the key issue in the Yahoo! case a few years ago.  In contrast, in the United States, such a court order would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, because the American public policy in favor of free speech requires a much higher standard of imminent harm (where the speaker would have to be explicitly urging physical violence against particular persons and would have to be speaking to an audience which he knew was capable of such violence).  This distinction is commonly taught in Internet law courses in American law schools to illustrate the difference between American and French public policy on freedom of speech and expression.  --Coolcaesar 04:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A prohibition on selling certain items, because of the content that they communicate, is equivalent to censorship, because it is suppressing the communication of the content to an audience.  For example, if selling any copies of Pokemon cartoons was illegal because Pokemon encourages the resolution of conflicts through violence or causes thousands of kids to have seizures (both technically true), then much fewer kids would ever know who are Ash and Pikachu.  The point is that by limiting the sale of an object, one ends up limiting the distribution of the object as well as any inherent meaning it communicates.  Both, of course, are the goal of the French law.  In contrast, the United States tends to be more tolerant of abhorrent and disgusting political ideas, because it was founded by revolutionaries whose views amounted to treason against the Crown.  Oddly, the U.S. is more intolerant towards nudity and sex in its media, though, than many other countries.  --Coolcaesar 04:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship in France? 

message: Internet2 seems to be listed as a research network in this article. However the Internet2 article says that it is a consortium which develops network technology, and that it is frequently mistaken for a network my the media. From the article: This is misleading since Internet2 is in fact a consortium and not a computer network. Could someone please confirm/disprove this? Matt73 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet2 

message: somebody has vandalized this page.Yet-another-user 04:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i have removed the vandalism. Yet-another-user 04:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: it's back... -150.101.251.68 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: hey guys I just did a search on internet <lowercase and i got redirected to the Internet Page. I am certain that there is a difference. Internet you all know and internet being a bunch of interconnected networks using all different kinds of protocals and topologies. am i mistaken? if not should we make a page for internet and link it to the Internet page?
:Indeed, there is a difference between the Internet, and an internet.
:I am of the opinion that this article should be renamed as The Internet, and that this articles current heading be used for the general sense of interconnected networks. -FrostyBytes 11:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey that is not a bad idea at all--Sniperwolf3 06:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, Internet spelled with a capital I is The Internet.  One generalized rule for capitalization is that a word must be capitalized if it is the name of some person, place or thing that is the only one of its kind.  Therefore, since there is only one Internet, it should be capitalized.  Uncapitalized internet could simply refer to any of a number of networked networks that exist; however, using the term internet might cause some confusion, I think.  Then there is the term intranet but that is somewhat different in it use. Katalaveno 14:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, but names can become common nouns, and I believe this has happened with the name "Internet" (which is now used to identify the services it offers, which is not the same thing as the technical basis for them).  I have edited the relevant section to reflect this. Rp (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Too bad.  The Internet Society, ICANN, W3C, IETF, etc. all use "Internet" consistently in their publications.  The correct analogy is to planet Earth and other proper nouns.  Unless you think mercury, venus, earth, mars, jupiter, etc. should be proper capitalization.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet and internet 

message: Here. Perhaps that could explain the spate of vandal IPs today. E. Sn0 =31337= 22:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linked to on Slashdot

message: I take issue with the definition of the WWW on the Internet page - a collection of documents?  Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the web is a graphical interface we use to access files on the Internet?  Because don't lots of people now say they're going to upload a video to the web, or download a podcast from the web?  They don't say they're going to go look at an HTML page with some Ajaxy stuff that allows them to view a video.
:Valid point - the correct word is resources, to include files, interactive Ajax applications, multimedia etc.  I've updated the article, but kept it brief.  The sentence above is interesting: maybe what they should say is something like, "they're going to upload a video using the internet to put it onto the web, or use the internet to download a podcast that they found by using the web".  If they could be bothered, that is :-) --Nigelj 17:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is part of the problem with the Web combining aspects of hypertext and Internet technologies.  Hypertext traditionally dealt with documents (that is, textual objects).  Even today, the Web is primarily about documents; HTML documents still form the primary navigational structure (and their formal structure is called the Document Object Model, after all).  A true hypermedia Web that transcends the document model would be one where people could seamlessly link from the middle of one Flash presentation to the middle of a QuickTime movie to a particular page in a 300-page PDF, but we haven't gotten that far yet.  Although we can embed plug-ins in HTML documents, and although some plug-ins like Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat support direct links into HTML and other types of files, the linking isn't truly universal, with Flash's and QuickTime's refusal to expose all objects as links posing the largest obstacle.  This is one of the issues that really gets on the nerves of hypermedia scholars, that Macromedia (now part of Adobe) and Apple are more interested in protecting their little fiefdoms rather than supporting a truly open and seamless Web.  I hope this clears up the issue.  --Coolcaesar 05:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because almost all 'web' browsers support protocols other than HTTP, such as FTP, I think that the issue must be addressed.  For those people who are trying to really understand or study Internet concepts, I think defining and distinguishing between web and Internet in this article is valuable information. I know this isn't the exact point brought up above but I think it's still worth a mention. Katalaveno 14:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you even generalise it as a collection of interconnected files? Technically, a growing number of websites use dynamically created content, through Content Management Systems, such as weblogs or even this site. Wikipedia is a collection, in itself, of some files, some multimedia resources, and a whole lot of database driven text. Frustrating to classify, but damned exciting to develop and explore. Lucanos (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Web on Internet page

message: I'm finding it hard to find the time to maintain Portal:Internet, and I'm looking for co-maintainers. Anyone interested? Computerjoe's talk 17:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[Portal:Internet]] 

message: I feel there is a need to cover the subject of autonomous systems, with respect to the internet.
202.54.176.11 09:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is way too much information for 95% of Wikipedia users. Remember, most users don't know the difference between a compiler and a interpreter, let alone the difference between the Web and the Internet (yes, there is a difference).  Perhaps a See also link at the bottom might be appropriate, but autonomous systems are too much of a tangent for any in-depth coverage here.  --Coolcaesar 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: See Autonomous system (Internet) --Nigelj 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autonomous Systems 

message: According to the networking book I was reading a couple of years ago, an internet is a connection of interconnected networks (thus the term), whereas The Internet is the global internet.  ie.  it's possible to have your own internet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.70.75 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what everybody keeps saying, but I've never seen a noun internet used in that sense.  The RFCs use "internet" almost exclusively as an adjective. Rp (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense; an internet-enabled device works for all internets, including The Internet.  --206.223.186.79 (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not necessarily true. An internet-enabled device might support a different addressing architecture than is currently allowed on the Internet. For example, the device might only support the 10.0.0.0/8 address range, which cannot be routed on the Internet (and thus it would not be Internet-enabled), but it could well be used to build quite an extensive internetwork. An Internet-enabled device should support the current addressing conventions used on the Internet. This is a realistic problem in the discussion of allocating some previously reserved address ranges to the RIRs. There are some devices that simply are hard/firm-ware restricted in the range of addresses they can support. Kbrose (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Internet" versus "an internet"

message: I'm seeing a growing trend here in the U.S. of people referring to having internet service as having an internet. ISPs are doing this too when marketing their services (AT&T and Earthlink are notable examples). I personally find this rather odd. I can't think of any other service the average person consumes to which we refer in a similar manner. For instance, we don't say that we have a cable, we say that we have cable. The former would be confusing -- I personally have many different cables including network cables, power cables, phone cables, etc. Granted, there are some who can honestly say they have an inter-network (internet for short). Some businesses for example. However, that generally does not apply to everyday consumers. Comments?
Siggimoo 15:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard the precise usage you are talking about and I live in the Bay Area too.  I have seen/heard the AT&T TV commercials where they say, "you can get Internet, cable, and phone all on one bill."  Can you cite a particular advertisement or describe a particular TV commercial so that we can understand what you are talking about?  --Coolcaesar 07:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Earthlink ran a TV ad campaign not too long ago in which their "staff" spoke about their Internet services, working at Earthlink, etc. One of the people stated, "...I will do all I can to get you a high-speed Internet that goes up to 70 times faster than dial-up." I've been looking around for an online copy to which I can link, but I'm not finding it. If I do, I'll post it here. -- Siggimoo 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that on a cable network?  I have only over-the-air antenna.  I haven't seen a Earthlink campaign for a long time. --Coolcaesar 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, for important issues like evolution of language, a single advertisement is insufficient evidence of a "trend" and to draw that weak inference would constitute original research in violation of core policies like Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You need to get either several written examples (for example, if you can show that several prominent journalists have published that usage) or even better, an academic paper by a English professor or professional lexicographer.  After all, the job of lexicographers is to update dictionaries to reflect current usage!  --Coolcaesar 21:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet vs. Internet Service 

message: referring to Internet as "the internet" is a grammatical error which assumes that Internet is the only network that exists.  Much the same as calling any Internet browser "Internet Explorer." --Rebent 14:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be the only network, but it is arguably the most important, it's like The Pill, i'ts not the only pill in existence, not even the most important, but massive amounts of people who hear the words "the pill" are going to think about birth control pill.--Chain Impact 15:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't understand how there can be 'massive amount of people'! Shouldn't it be 'large number of people' instead? Kazimostak 13:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Be that as it may, "the pill" is not a trademark.  Should we change all the instances of "tissue" to "Kleenex" just because it's the most widely recognized? --Rebent 15:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is incorrect, see the Internet#The_name_Internet in this very article.  An internet is any internetwork of networks, many of them exist.  The Internet is the large, publich internetwork of networks that most people use. Wrs1864 15:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are obviously misreading it.  Internet#The_name_Internet is about the convention of using upper or lower case is in the word "Internet" --Rebent 15:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section, correctly says: "Under this distinction, the Internet is a particular internet, but the reverse does not apply."  Wrs1864 15:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is about Internet capitalization conventions, not about internet article usage --Rebent 15:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, clearly, but that doesn't change the fact that there is "*the* Internet" and "many internets", of which the Internet is only one of them. Now, whether the capitalization alone is enough to make that distinction is somewhat open to dispute.  Wrs1864 15:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Nigelj, and welcome to Wikipedia.  I think that if you had a look at the dictionary or any peer-reviewed encyclopedia you would find that, in the real world, just because many people believe in something doesn't mean it should be true. Perhaps you should add a section entitled "Internet vs. The Internet" and express your claims there, so as to keep the article NPOV --Rebent
There is only one Internet in the context of this article. The word "the" is providing the definite description when used with the noun "Internet" because though traditionally internet could mean any old bunch of routers it is now properly "the Internet" i.e. that big network based around the root DNS servers and with IP addresses issued by a central managing body (more or less ICANN). You can have other networks but you'd never refer to a bunch of routers using private address space as "the internet" but as an "intranet". In the context of one company you could say "the intranet". I think it would be very hard to make a claim of that "the Internet" is an improper definite description unless you can show us where these other internets reside ? Until then "the internet" sticks for me and "internet" is WP:OR. Ttiotsw 02:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: D'oh!  great point about intranet.  I've put a mention of it in the naming section. (dang, the autosign bot is *quick*!) Wrs1864 02:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet vs. The Internet

message: I'm deleting the section that follows:
"The Internet is a series of tubes
The internet is made up of a series of tubes. To operate the internet at it's full potential, linus is required. Linus can be acquired at your local retail JC Penney's clothing store."
But it is a series of tubes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.175.10 (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The internet is a series of tubes

message: There has to be more about the mobile internet. Websites are created specifically for users of mobile phones. They tend to be smaller, require less input and text-based. Also, SMS/texting can fit in somewhere, i'm sure. - Ashton V. 08:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mobile Internet is Incomplete 

message: There is no mention of the cultural and social impact of the internet in this article. Unless there is an unmentioned article I have not seen, then I feel that it be said there ought to be one.
The internet is the most revolutionary advancement in human history, in every aspect of our lives, ever. Virtually nothing has made information more available, easier to connect to one another or change our lives. 
It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility of an article discussing the impact of the internet in human society, science and development.Eedo Bee
:See Wikipedia core policies at Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  I agree the social impact is relevant but assessment of such impact is so subjective that every assertion needs to be cited.  Otherwise you're just asking for a huge edit war.  --Coolcaesar 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural/Social Significance 

message: While discussing protocols used in the Internet: (in the TCP and UDP part), it was written: "The latter is a best-effort, connectionless transport, in which data packets that are lost in transit will not be re-sent." To me, this is confusing, espcially 'best effort' and 'data packets that are lost in transit will not be re-sent' part! Would anybody enlighten me please?? Kazimostak 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you try following the link to UDP in that sentence?  That article has, "UDP does not provide the reliability and ordering while TCP does. Datagrams may arrive out of order, appear duplicated, or go missing without notice. Without the overhead of checking if every packet actually arrived, UDP is faster and more efficient for many lightweight or time-sensitive purposes."  Does that help?  Once you realise what was confusing you, let us know and maybe update the article yourself if it actually is confusing in the way it puts this point across. --Nigelj 22:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence quoted is an elegant and perfectly clear summary of how UDP compares to TCP.  We do not need to make it unnecessarily wordy for novice Internet users or novice Wikipedia uesrs who do not understand how to click on hyperlinks to other articles to get the full explanation.  We do not need to import the details of UDP into this article!  --Coolcaesar 07:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After Nijelj's explanation, things became clear to me. I think I did not read the sentence carefully, and that's all. By the way, I am neither 'novice Internet user' nor 'user who do not understand how to click on hyperlinks to other articles to get the full explanation'. And more importantly, I didn't know that there are ridiculous humbugs like Coolcaesar who infest wikipedia talk pages like viruses and try to 'enlighten' people in this boorish way! Again, Nigelj, thank you so much for your civility and politeness! Kazimostak 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very confusing sentence 

message: In the "Common uses of the Internet"-area, shouldn't shopping be mentioned, with ebay and Amazon as the most obvious examples? (Another example on how it can be used in work, is how movies are made, both animated and live action.) 193.217.195.42 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shopping

message: Should the DDOS on the root servers count? As reported here: BBC News 86.130.104.36 18:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant Internet Events

message: "English is the most prevalent..." and most abused? Either it prevails or it does not. Can someone please edit this? Thanks Snoom haplub 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: I am looking for research on information about how the internet has created some online communities that would not of ever existed without them. by this I mean both the communities based on people who have something in common thanks to the growing technology (like hackers and web comic artists) and also communities whoes members previous to the internet were seperated by distance or fear of embaressement (or arrest) (Such cases include Furries, perverts, and peopophiles).
All I have been able to find is stuff on how the technology is changing the type of society in real life, and totally ignoring these types of communities!
If ANYONE can tell me where to find this information I am after, contact me, PLEASE Corrupt one 03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woof, vice magazine still wants to write that story about furries? how booooring... ;) --lynX
I was only giving examples off the top of my head. I could of just as easily of mentioned anarchists or different protest groups. Also, I was thinking about people who like having them as Avatars and roll playing anthromorthic animals in roll play games (and not the sexual kind either, although it DOES bring up the matter of internet communities being misunderstood by a few public cases of negitive exposure [both meanings intended]). I am also interested in how lynX would automatically think about Furries as in the fetish context immediantly, would know about a magaizine called Vice magainze, which caters to fetishes by the sound of the context s/he put in in, and that s/he seems to be so familiar with it that s/he is bored by it.
I would also like to ask that s/he keeps all comments in this section related to this subject.
The s/he is NOT accidental, since I have no idea WHAT fetishes s/he engages in on or off the internet, and I am covering myself in case they include MORFing. Thanks to no-one being able to tell anything about a person, and people lying about themselves, for all I know Lynx may be a fifty year old fat, hairy, foul smelling, drunked homosexual guy who likes being gang banged. S/he might also be an upstanding woman of good taste in her twenties, but since she knows that kind of magazine well enough to consider a Furry Fetish boring, I would not place any money on it.
Before anyone started accusing me of Trolling, I would like to find out lynX's response to this matter I have just raised about false identities used on Internet communities, another important matter when talking about the internet as a whole, as it deals with self representation.
I would also like for him/her to send me copies of the stories on Furries she mentioned in that comment of his/hers, as well as of any other fetish community s/he is ware of articles about, so I can see how Internet communities as a whole are portrayed there. Corrupt one 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet's effect on sociology 

message: The distinction was evident in many RFCs, books, and articles from the 1980s and early 1990s (some of which, such as RFC 1918, refer to "internets" in the plural), but has recently fallen into disuse.
: The first uses of the plural I can find in RFCs are in RFC 870, RFC 872 (quoted), and RFC 882.  Capitalization is inconsistent. My suspicion is that before 1982, "internet" was rarely if ever used as a noun, but only or mainly as an adjective: i.e. "internet mail", "internet protocol", "internet service" were popular, while "an internet" and "internets" were rarely used.  Then Gore helped create "the Internet" (i.e. NSFNET and everything attached to it with TCP/IP) which turned the term into a proper noun.  On the other hand, it's quite possible that "internets" was widely used before 1982 and that it's just hard to come up with references to prove it.  Rp (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I personally agree with your assessment, this isn't something that's easy to support with hard numbers.  What's more, it's likely that this usage is marginal in the grand scheme of things and only prevalent in certain parts of internet subculture.  In any case, I think that the humorous usage of the plural "internets" is trivia at best, and its inclusion wouldn't improve this article in any significant way. -- mattb @ 2007-03-03T07:32Z
What about the example, "(like radio or newspaper, e.g. I've found it in internet)" used in the article?  That's a joke, isn't it, like 'interweb' and 'tinternet'? No-one actually says 'I've found it in internet' even in America, do they?  I'm planning on changing it to say 'I've found it on the internet' - has anyone got a problem with that? --Nigelj 11:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is now a page on Internets. It is predominantly about the George W Bush gaffes at the 2000 and 2004 presidential debates but also mentions the earlier use of the term. In modern useage, interconnected networks are still just "a network" (never an internet), since most networks require some level of interconnection anyway. 60.241.193.143 06:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internets 

message: Hello group. I had added a link to this article's resources and it was removed. I received a message that I should first propose the addition here before attempting to re-post it. I felt it was relevant and appropriate so I'm a bit confused as to why it was rejected. I've added links in the past without having issues, and I'm not trying to spam this excellent resource so perhaps I can get  group  approval or a clearer explanation as to what I did wrong.
Thanks.
Respectfully,
Mike Cherim 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia already has a good history of the Internet article.  Internal links are always preferred to external ones, and generally external links cover material that is out of the scope for inclusion in Wikipedia.  In this case, I don't think that the blog posting covers any ground that isn't already covered on Wikipedia. -- mattb @ 2007-04-02T17:20Z
Fair enough. Thanks for the fast response. -- Mike Cherim 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a Link 

message: Please if you can, review the article a little so we know its correct due to recent vandalisms. Avalean 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection for 72 hours starting 6th of April 2007 

message: I just happened to be looking at this article, and thought that I would mention WP:BETTER#Size.  Also, I took a look at some of the subtopic articles which this article wikilinks to, and noticed some cases where info included here is more detailed than the information in the subtopic article.  I've got too much on my plate right now to participate in any large way in improving this apparently suboptimal situation, but I thought that I would at least mention it here. -- Boracay Bill 06:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:BETTER#Size 

message: I had once read on a newspaper, I think, that the Internet would run out of space around the year 2008... Is this true? If so, shouldn´t it be mentioned at the article? ♠Tom@sBat 21:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Internet actually ran out of space in 1997 and we're just cramming pop-up ads into it to cover it up. JuJube 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heavily covered in IP address starvation. Escape to IPv6 while there's still time! :-) --Alvestrand 23:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link! :) ♠Tom@sBat 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this space you are talking about?  Maybe you should explain in the article?  What is the Internet made up of anyway.  Neopetslovette 00:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The End of the Internet 

message: Wasn't his a leading force behind the internet? 71.182.73.134 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  if Al gore is not mentioned ONCE in this article, then we know we have a problem 

message: Paul Otlet in 1934 had a similar idea about creating the internet itself. this is a short documentary about his idea:: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qwRN5m64I7Y. this is part of this film:: m L'homme qui voulait http://user.online.be/sofidoc/lhomme.htm. and this other article about him. http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/forgotten_forefather_paul_otlet
--208.104.151.215 15:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No professional scholar of the history of technology takes seriously the proposition that Otlet proposed anything like the Internet in 1934.  His monographic principle certainly bears a striking resemblance to some aspects of hypertext, but even then, his role in the creation of that technology is considered to be a minor footnote.  It was Vannevar Bush who independently conceived similar ideas in 1945 that directly inspired Ted Nelson and Douglas Engelbart to create hypertext in the early 1960s.  Please do some reading on this difficult and complex field (I have over 24 binders of photocopies which will go into my long-planned book) before making such silly statements. --Coolcaesar 19:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Otlet and Internet. 

message: The article states that VoIP is especially popular with "those with always-on ADSL or DSL Internet connections."  Why do we need to mention one or two specific forms of always-on Internet connections? Why is there no mention of VoIP use with a cable internet connection?
I think it should be changed to just say that VOIP is especially popular with "those with always-on Internet connections." or "those with broadband connections."
141.158.94.198 21:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is self-evident that people who have to pay by the minute for dial-up internet access won't get much benefit from VoIP - their system will mostly be offline so people can't place calls to them, and they will be paying for a local dial-up call even during outgoing calls. You don't need citations of scientific research for "water is wet" kind of statements.  Just a moment's thought once it's been pointed out. Cable connections were not meant to be excluded - ADSL was given as an example and someone else added CSL, I think. Rather than add a definitive list of all the always-on technologies, I hope the new sentence structure makes it clear that these are just a few examples for the non-techie reader. --Nigelj 21:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VoIP bias 

message: Under Internet Access in the article it says  
"..., Wi-Fi, satellite and technology 3G (EVDO) cell phones."
Should the word technology even be in there?
The inclusion of EVDO but not other internet capable mobile networks (Like EDGE) seems odd. Is internet usage truly limited to 3G networks? 
I think the part regarding internet access from mobile phones/over mobile phone networks needs to be made either much more specific or simplified so it does not name specific protocols.
 
Jack53 02:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of EVDO in the article. 

message: I think there should be mention of how the internet reaches overseas, from USA to Europe and so on. I'm not too sure how exactly that functions... Gumdropster 14:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overseas... 

message: This page should contain some sort of reference to the idea that the internet will be restructured and a new internet might prevail; a future internet. Madskile 04:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a publisher of original research. See official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of the internet 

message: I got this bit of trivia about the internet:
"The average web page contains 500 words."
Would you say this is true or would you dispute it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.109.142 (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it is true or not, can you support it with a reliable source? Splintercellguy 05:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And, if you can, don't forget to go and add it to the World Wide Web article, not to this one, because this one is about the internet, not the web. :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelj (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  would you say? 

message: The formerly inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet fills a highly important role. :Category:Internet protocols and :Category:Internet standards, orgs like ARIN and the IETF, there is a ton and a half of work to be done, and the vast majority of these articles are not yet being coordinated by any WikiProject. Anyone interested in helping? MrZaiustalk 16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcement of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet]]

message: On the worldwideweb, what are the contrasts between users of the internet between different languages?  May we say that there is a www of portugal, a www of the united states, and a www of Russia?  Would it be more appropriate to say that there is an english speaking web, a spanish speaking web, and a mandarin speaking web?  What is seperating these different webs?  Much else besides language?  Is the infrastructure seperating these webs?  
How are google, yahoo, live, or majestic-12 and other search engines seperating these webs?  How are they integrating them?  
Where can I find statistics on the amount of users in the English speaking web, or the amount of users of the Icelandic speaking web etc...?
What are the barriers, the technical barriers that is, keeping people seperated on the web?\
What are you talking about. This page is for the Internet, NOT the World Wide Web, which is NOT just one word. Also, the Web is NOT devided into different webs. I have come across links to sites in German, Japaneese, french, Russian, Portugal, and those are one I can recognize.
The web is just a group of interlinked files, mainly documents, but with Flash coming along, then as well. It was designed so that any document can link to any other file. Please read Weaving the Web  by Tim Berner Lee, the man who INVENTED the web. Corrupt one 23:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about realms of the internet 

message: more realms...
It seems that there should be some sort of sub-web, like p2p?  What other sub-webs are there?  Are there any other www-like networks running on top, underneath, or alongside of the existing internet structure?  I have heard of something like "Tor?"  What else is out there?  Another question I have is how do the chinese circumvent that firewall?  Do they use anything like these "sub-webs"? 
IF you know of some resources for me to read will you please post them?  Also, if you know of better jargon to use, will you please post that as well.
Thank you in advance wikipedians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.134.53 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: _

message: A sentence should be put in like "Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore has been reported and, in some cases, ridiculed, for claiming to have invented the internet." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_13_45/ai_54339375
Not a big section, but a sentence.
Cam809 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to credit Al Gore for invention

message: I agree that segment should of been removed. Not only was it unsourced, but it was WRONG! I believe someone should get a book on the internet and look at what goverance there is. The book "Virtual Nation: the Internet in Australia" springs to mind. Corrupt one 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goverance of the Internet 

message: I believe that this page is indeed a Conflict of Interest per anyone who edits the Internet article is indeed using the Internet. I saw this policy on Wikipedia that states this at WP:COI. It seems that there is no way that this article would abide by this policy on here. I didn't add the COI tag on this page as it would probally be removed anyway. I will be also discussing this over at the WP:COI talk page also to see about it.  Sawblade05  (talk to me | my wiki life) 10:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read on past that part it goes on to stat that you shouldn't edit articles about your intrest per WP:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest and WP:COI#Consequences_of_ignoring_this_guideline. As I said everyone is using the internet here and yes that can be used against you per what is stated in the WP:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest. So therefore does not follow with these parts below what you stated.  Sawblade05  (talk to me | my wiki life) 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Therefore, in stating my conflict of interest, I freely admit that I use the Internet, the English language, chairs, clothing, food and water, and my contributions to these articles may therefore be biased.  In order to counter systemic bias, I encourage those who have never used the items listed above to contribute to these articles. GUllman 03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am goonna go with what GUllman says here even though on WP:COI is kinda screwed up right now anyway per this edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=next&oldid=167501188 Which make this page sound less like a COI. Seems like a case closed, I hope.  Sawblade05  (talk to me | my wiki life) 09:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page is Very Possibly Conflict of Interest 

message: Would it be proper to mention the main motivation for the invetion of the internet, which according to When Wizards Stay Up Late was because the people in charge were annoyed with having to access each network in their building via a different terminal, having to know the computer enviroment for each, and the command languages for them?
That was in addition to people all over the place demanding more computers from ARPA, and having to set up different things in different ways to work, and NOT being able to easy share data.
Corrupt one 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The motivation for the Internets invention 

message: I remember a few years ago, when you visited a non-existing .com domain (net and org too I believe), it would redirect you to some company's website.  This only lasted a day or so.  Is there an article on this event somewhere? dearly 04:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found what I was looking for.  Site Finder dearly (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous event -- bad .com redirects 

message: I suggest taking the small section Marketing and adding it as a subsection of the Common Uses section. Any thoughts?UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing as sub-section 

message: Hello, folks. I've just made a few edits to the article as there seemed to be several inappropriate mentions of university students and the 1960s/70s. These seemed to be emotional rather than rational, based on some kind of subjective reading of university life in those decades as being dominated by freedom loving liberals, and painting a rather too highly coloured pictured of the impact of computer/communications technology on university life in the 1960s and 1970s. The text I edited was in the "Growth" section, and cited several "early university internet communities" - the inference clearly being that these communities came into being in the 1960s/70s (!) The only one to carry a link, Blacksburg Electronic Village, was actually established in 1993.
I have only made a few alterations, but the 60s/70s references did read as subjective and inaccurate - and rather out of place in a factual piece.
I recently read a blog article which accused Wikipedia of "70s hype". I have not encountered it so far, but the "Growth" section of this piece did seem a little close to it. 
(Dorgan65 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Well stated.  Whomever inserted those crazy edits is rather ignorant and not too bright (probably an intellectually immature preteen).  Someone needs to trace the history of those edits and either block or at least warn off the person responsible.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  YOU CANNOT JUST CHANGE TIME YOU FOOLS!!! 134.84.51.3 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altering the Timeline/60s/70s 

message: "Over 6 million people use blogs or message boards as a means of communication and for the sharing of ideas." -- this is misleading (real figure is much higher) and unsourced. Should be changed. 80.169.89.162 (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Leisure contains unsourced, and inaccurate claim 

message: No where in this article does it mention the US military, which is the actually developer of the Internet. Wiki has lost all validity and cannot be considered a reliable source of information if it used as nothing but propaganda either for or against someone or something--in this case a blatent and obvious ommision of the US military. It is common knowledge among people in the sciences that the US military is the original developer of the Internet. CERN came up with the WWW, which is not the Internet. I am completely shocked this article is allowed to stay as it is, completely void of factual information. To be honest, almost everything one reads on wiki these days claims Brits invented it, or originated it. I have yet to search for "rock n roll" but I wouldn't be surprised if the article says Britain came up with it. The reason why the United States controls Internet protocol is because it was first developed by the US military. I am completey and utterly shocked this article is allowed to stay as is. Wiki cannot be regarded as a accurate source of information any longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidosdad (talk • contribs)  
: YOU FOOOLS!  THE INTERNET IS NOT YOUR AMERICAN PLAYGROUND!  COLOUR IS THE BETTER SPEELING! 134.84.51.3 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wiki Owned by Brits?? 

message: It's shocking to find that the only mentioning of the United States in this article, despite America's huge role in the Internet's development, is done either derogatorily or hapenstance. 
Note the following quotes which are the only mentioning of the United States:
"It may also be related to the poor capability of early computers, largely originating in the United States, to handle characters other than those in the English variant of the Latin alphabet."
The smug statement suggesting that the United States, being so "backward" and "xenophobic" could not foresee the Internet's huge international appeal is unnecessary. 
"New findings in the field of communications during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s were quickly adopted by universities across the United States....Examples of early university Internet communities are Cleveland FreeNet, Blacksburg Electronic Village and NSTN in Nova Scotia"
They were "adopted" by universities across the United States, but none were instrumental in originating them? No mention anywhere in the article that they were. But we are given an example of an Internet "village"--in Nova Scotia!
The article cannot circumvent the fact that ICANN is created by the United States. But basd on the article, one would have to ask why? If the United States had NOTHING to do with the Interent's development, as the article insinuates, then why would the US control its protocol?
"Many countries, including the United States, have enacted laws making the possession or distribution of certain material, such as child pornography, illegal, but do not use filtering software."
Again, why are we singling out the United States here?? In actuality, thanks to the First Amendment, pornography laws in the US are less stringent than in Canada.
More and more of the articles I read on Wiki are completely devoid of facts merely because the writers refuse to mention key roles played by Americans and the United States, especially its military.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidosdad (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-American nature of article 

message: As of September 30, 2007, 1.244 billion people use the Internet according to Internet World Stats. Writing in the Harvard International Review, philosopher N.J.Slabbert, a writer on policy issues for the Washington DC-based Urban Land Institute, has asserted that the Internet is fast becoming a basic feature of global civilization, so that what has traditionally been called "civil society" is now becoming identical with information technology society as defined by Internet use. Some suggest that as low as 2% of the World's population regularly accesses the internet.[2] "http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/quiz/quiz_key.pdf"
Something wrong here.65.9.169.125 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  I just noticed that while reading the article and came here.  I don't see that listed in either of the sites they listed as references.  I Googled around but can't find a credible source for that information.  Everything seems to suggest its just nonsense.  I just went and erased it nowDream Focus (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: contradiction

message: There is good information here and in related articles. Hard to peruse them all or understand what is there. I suggest that a navigational box is needed, but how to order (classify articles) it and what articles to include (and, much worse, not include!) is a real problem. Right now, a naive researcher (me, except I was trained in the industry) has to blunder about a lot of links, and see alsos to find information. Student7 (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Navigational box

message: The second paragraph seems to be trying to equate "Internet" (short for internetwork, see the article of the same name) with "International Network". The article is locked, thus I can't fix that right away. But so far as I can tell it's just a false etymology, which is particularly silly when Wikipedia already lists the true etymology elsewhere. Would someone who can fix it, please do so, perhaps opening with the much shorter sentence "The Internet and the World Wide Web are not synonymous." or perhaps reconsidering this paragraph entirely (defining things by what they are not is usually poor style). 82.69.171.90 (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also noticed that problem over the past year; thanks for catching it again.  If we can't identify and lock down that clown's IP addresses (e.g. if he's on a dial-up or mobile wireless link) then we might need to keep this article under semi or even full protection indefinitely.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "International network

message: This involves a minor edit, but the date for the connection between UCLA and SRI should be consistent with the ARPANET page, which lists November 21, 1969, not October 29, 1969, as the date of the first link.  I'm not sure which of these is the actual date, but it seems like it should be consistent across Wikipedia pages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elainecs (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   ffm 16:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct date for first ARPANET link?

message: --
The International Standards Office had its own version of the internet made, and tied to get the already established internet removed. This failed, but it greatly affected the expansion of the internet as people were unsure of which proticals to make. Some people used both. I think we should have a segment in the article about that.
Corrupt one (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation please? ffm 16:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Huh? If you're talking about Open Systems Interconnection, at most, it's worthy of only a single one-sentence mention and a link, but not a whole section.  Keep in mind that while OSI was initially conceived of as a complete networking package, and certain government bureaucrats backing it in many countries, including in the U.S., did attempt to displace various protocols in the TCP/IP family with OSI equivalents by fiat, OSI was never completed as a working network protocol stack because the written-by-committee OSI protocols were so badly designed that they could not be implemented in practice.  I know that OSI was briefly seen as a major threat to the Internet at one point (from around 1987 to about 1994) but I don't think it warrants much mention in an article about the Internet as it currently exists.  We have a separate article on the History of the Internet.  And the Internet article is already quite large and rambling.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISO's Internet 

message: Zeitgeist, Loose Change, Endgame? What do three 9/11 conspiracy theory movies have to do with Collaboration on the Internet?
--89.132.107.235 (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 conspiracy theories sneaked in 

message: Hi there hope everyone is having a good day, btw i think the internet has influenced pop culture and even more obviously built up its own culture e.g. Wikipedia and geek talk like lol therefore i kinda think it should have its own section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.37.192 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture? 

message: Currently on the page the percentage of internet users is broken into these "continents": North America, Latin America and Caribbean, Asia, and Europe.  Mexico, however is a part of both Latin America and North America, so it is unclear whether internet users located in Mexico are counted as a part of North America, Latin America, both, or neither.  Also, what about Australia?  This information seems unreliable to me and should probably be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superflyj (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet users by continent data unclear 

message: Currently the article doesn't mention the term Internetwork which is in my eyes fundamental to explaining the internet -62.172.143.205 (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internetwork 

message: The segemtn on the Internet protocols mentions
At the lower level (OSI layer 3) is IP (Internet Protocol), which
How is this possible, since TCP/IP were around well before OSI? I think someone stuffed up. We need to have that fixed. Corrupt one (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I recall is that the OSI stack is an abstract description, whereas the TCP/IP stack is a concrete implementation that can be mapped to OSI although it doesn't fit exactly.  So nobody "stuffed up". Rp (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Protocols 

message: Has anybody seen this?
http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality
The above claims that most internet providers will be changing to content-restricting subscriptions in 2012. This will, according to the video, basically kill the internet. Can this even be done? Aren't there neutrality regulations in place?
Can we verify this, or is this a hoax? If this is legitimate, this could be VERY important. Legianon (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subscriptions? The Internet Ends in 2012 

message: You've all seen them. They float around as spam in you e-mail accounts. Quite a few of the contain viruses. Quite a few of them look harmless. Many contain information saying "Forward this message and <insert whatever bogus idea they have>!"
A common question, sometimes heard on the internet and other places, is that"Did Al Gore create the internet?" The common reason for this is because on an interview with CNN, it is reported that Al Gore said " During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Gore, who was elected to Congress in 1976, missed 1969, the year when ARAPANET started and 1974, when the internet use started. However, he can be credited with supporting the internet more than any other elected official 
   
Internet Clean Up Day: this is a hoax saying that there is an annual day that all accumulated e-junk, such as old bookmarks, emails, and files, that supposedly takes place on March 31 (April Fool's Eve). 
The first rumored person to have used the internet Charley Kline of UCLA. He was sending the first packets on ARAPANET as he attempted to connect through the Stanford Research Institute October 29, 1969. The system crashed as he reached the letter G in LOGIN  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh.cursed.one (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Myths, Rumors, and Random Facts 

message: This section largely avoids the points, which are that either spelling is completely understandable, that style manual fanatics love to argue about such things that are largely a matter of opinion and local usage. Drawing "hard" distinctions between different senses of the word, the way it's done here, just demonstrates some folks want to believe that words have fixed meanings to everybody. Which any linguist would laugh at.
That published opinions can be quoted is hardly surprising, since everybody working with the early Internet needed to have an opinion. Even wrong, minority, pointless, transitory opinions. The New York Times does not tell the ACM what to do, and vice versa. It's not a contest to see who is right. It's enough to note the word varies widely in meaning.
The whole section could be reduced to little more than the first sentence, and it wouldn't make a wit of difference to what a reader gained from the article.
67.180.48.233 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Many readers will come here with a preconceived idea of what "internet" or "the Internet" means, without being aware of other uses or of their legitimacy; spelling out the differences and relationships between these uses is an essential part of clearing up possible confusion and therefore necessary in Wikipedia articles. Rp (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: internet vs Internet

message: Check all the sources in prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/061108_kill_internet.htm this article]. It's horrible. User:Striver  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.210.254 (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: End of the free internet

message: Though admittedly a minor issue, shouldn't the phrase in the section "Today's Internet" that reads "(e.g., peering agreements)" actually be "(i.e., peering agreements)". As far as I am aware, the only "bi- or multi-lateral commercial contracts" that exist, can be reasonably classified as "peering agreements".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.219.64 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peering agreements 

message: Thailand should be added to the list of countries that restrict what people in their countries can access on the Internet. please do some research and you will find out.
I think we can watch youtube again but that was just one of the many blocked websites (and services)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.26.207 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to a reliable source that states that this is so would be useful.  It's not that we don't believe you, just that with a cited source, the new information will be accepted by all editors and readers. --Nigelj (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thailand should be added the list of countries that restrict what people in their countries can access on the Internet. 

message: Internet is Centralized at W3 Consorcium. This is how everybody comunicate, we are connected by a this center. Every information go true W3 Consorcioum and get copied in cache to be provided to everybody, and then a copy is also guive to the Search Engines of the Center W3 Consorcium. The information is also cached by the Search Engines. Every usuary is connected to W3 Consorcium.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.6.61 (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are referring to the World Wide Web, not the Internet. Rp (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: ... and not a single word of what you have said is true, either about how the web works, TCP/IP connections, the W3C's role, caching, search engines - all tosh.  Sorry. Read some of the articles and find out more. --Nigelj (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Internet Work: 

message: There is some very muddy terminology in this section too: 
;"At the top is the space (Application Layer) of the software application, e.g., a web browser application"
:The Application layer includes implementations of HTTP and many other protocols, but this cannot be explained as just 'software application[s] e.g.  web browser[s]'. In this case, HTTP defines a client-server request-response protocol, of which web browsers implement only one half (web servers the other), but they also implement a huge amount of other (much more visible) things like HTML, CSS and script interpretation, bookmarks, font, image and multimedia rendering etc etc, that are not helpful in defining the TCP/IP application layer.  The TCP/IP application layer defines HTTP as an application layer protocol, not web browsers.
;"the Transport Layer which connects applications on different hosts via the network (e.g., client-server model)"
:The Transport layer includes implementations of TCP and RDP, and so defines software sockets for virtual connections to be made, but does not include a definition of the client-server model or any other system design patterns
The older version of this section with its three, clear bullet points was potentially much clearer, in my opinion. True the content of those points needn't have laboured the numbering differences between practical TCP/IP and the theoretical OSI model, and in that light there could have been four of them, but the simplicity was much better than the current half-true, unreferenced mud, I feel. --Nigelj (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion in 'Internet protocols' section

message: Seriously, a map of the internet? Is that a joke or something? D: 74.56.36.34 (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet map? 

message: Language
. . . By continent, 38% of the world's Internet users are based in Asia, 27% in Europe, 18% in North America, 10% in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 7% in Australia.[6]
I was alerted to a problem when I read that a country of circa 20 million residents (Australia), could represent 7% of the world's Internet users. When I followed the link to the referenced data, I found that most of the statistics were slightly in error (presumably due to rounding), with two notable exceptions. The Middle East which presumably has 2.9% of the world's internet users, was ignored, whilst Australia's 1.4% of internet users was overstated by more than 400%.
If the data in the referenced study is to be accepted, the sentence should be re-written to state:
. . . By continent, the world's Internet users are based in: Asia, 39.5%; Europe, 26.3%; North America, 17.0%; Latin America and the Caribbean, 9.5%; the Middle East, 2.9%; and Australia, 1.4%.[6]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yank-in-Oz (talk • contribs) 01:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the referenced source (Internet World Stats) is not a 'study', but a dynamic site that continually updates its statistics. The figures on our WP page were last updated on March 31, 2008, so are due to be brought up to date.  I just tried, but stopped as some of the figures on Internet World Stats suddenly make little sense to me.  I started with usage by language, and hit the problem when looking at French: If 94,000,000 Japanese speakers represent 1.9 % of all Internet users, how can 68,152,447 French speakers represent 6.1 %?  I took a calculator to some of the other percentages and actually many of them seemed out. So either I don't understand what those figures represent, or Internet World Stats has a software glitch, or maybe they have a jingoistic French speaker locked in competition with the over-enthusiastic Australian who massaged the other figures before we copied them in March? (P.S. The last option was meant as a joke - you can't believe how little sense of humour some people have, so its better to be careful now than sorry later, I find)  Either way, the current figures look no more reliable than the March ones now do; the March ones can no longer be verified (as I say, the source updates and doesn't display a complete history): Maybe we need a new source of statistics that we can better depend on; or maybe we just kill the two stats paragraphs - I always thought they muddled the web with the internet, and updating them both every few months is a job for life. --Nigelj (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text does not match referenced statistics 

message: We are all part of a global communication network, where the flow of information, news and current affairs are available to us almost instantly. This revolution can be attributed to the World Wide Web, or better known as (and most commonly called) the ‘internet’. This complex phenomenon has led to the freedom of information around the world and provides enormous fields liberty for those who are fortunate enough to become part of this virtual universe of information. As you may not know, the history of the internet stems from a computer network built by the ‘Advanced Research Projects Agency’ in 1969, otherwise known as ARPA. This agency was constructed for means of ‘mobilizing research resources’ in the military, by the Defence Department of the United States (Manuel, 2001).
The internet has come a long way since its days known as ‘APARNET’. Its functions and uses have changed dramatically along with the increases in technology and the fast spread of information. There has been a shift from an age where the flow of information was time consuming and we have now moved into a culture of freedom, in every meaning of the word. Not only are there limited gatekeepers, society today use the internet as a means for social networking. This is not only limited to younger generations; it is a way for people of all ages to keep in touch with family and friends, or to meet new people. This social phenomenon has taken the student culture by storm, as well as all other generations. This computer networking system empowers people with information and is used as a tool of ‘free communication and liberation’ for all (Manuel, 2001).  The introduction of the internet has drastically changed the way in which people communicate with one another, and the benefits of this include; its efficiency, effectiveness and the ability to reach a wider audience based on people’s interests, as well as unexpected temporary alliances between ‘hackers, artists, critics, journalists and activists’ (Graham, 2004).
The potential of the internet is yet to have surfaced; and as we are exposed to such a wide spectrum of information, we have the ability to increase our knowledge and shape our prospective learning environments. It is with information and knowledge that we can create power, with which all have the ability to implement significant change where it is needed. The internet and its many uses generate ideas and forums for people to discuss issues of interest. Thus, providing an outlet for human imagination and intelligence, as well as a place to vent, learn and grow.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossmas229 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet:Social Culture & Change 

message: Bulletin board systems used the primitive ARPA net as a means to conduct forums and exchange information long before there was a World Wide Web. BB systems still exist today. They certainly should be included as a vital facility of the Internet.
Wyzowl (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, no.  Sounds like you need to read a few basic foundation books on the history of the Internet and telecommunications in general.  FidoNet and other early store-and-forward BBS networks would NOT have been necessary if ARPANET access was so easy back then.  ARPANET/Internet had a ban on commercial use for a long time which was finally lifted by NSF in 1994.  Prior to that point, it was nearly impossible to get ARPANET or Internet access if one wasn't affiliated with DoD, ARPA, DCA, or any of the various academic institutions which had access to the network for one reason or another.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulletin Board Systems. 

message: hi there. We have established a internet template and it would be good to have some more opinions on it. Its really meant to make it easier for the interested reader to find related articles, and cover some of the Internet basics. If people could go to  and contribute. Eventually I would also like to create an Internet footer that can be placed on the bottom of shorter articles. Ta--SasiSasi (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed 

message: One thing I would like to see in the article is at least some mention of the bootstrapping issue. It is often said that "nobody owns the Internet" but if that were true, a user should be able to reasonably provide means of accessing it on his own, without relying on the paid services of a telephone or cable company. (Or mooching free access from someone else who pays those companies.) 71.95.231.67 (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not clear why bootstrapping is relevant to this article unless you're using an obscure definition that's not clear.  Bootstrapping is normally used in philosophy of technology discourse to refer to something like coevolution of technology or the recursive evolution of technology. That has very little to do with the property rights issues on the Internet or the tragedy of the commons, etc. Also, philosophy of technology is one of the most difficult areas of philosophy and should probably not be mentioned in an article for a general audience on such a broad subject (we can all agree the Internet is HUGE).  --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. The context I'm using is similar to that of bootstrapping node, but at the physical connection level. How does your computer become an internet node from the ground up? To oversimplify, you can frame the question in this context: if someone wants to have control (not merely contractual use of, but principle control) of a particular range of IP addresses, how does that person actually go about obtaining that control from ICANN and the powers that be? Within reason, this actually isn't possible. You would have to have the resources of a large corporation or government agency to accomplish such a goal. It is these large bodies that own the networks which interconnect with each other; everyone else is just renting access to one of these networks. The average user has no other means by which to connect to the internet. Thus I think the notion that "nobody owns the internet" is a falsehood, and the myth is common enough to warrant a discussion in the article. 71.95.231.67 (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see where you're going but I disagree with your proposed inclusion. The notion you pose is relatively little-known and much rarer than you make it sound; the phrase returns only 2,190 hits on Google. To compare, the much better known phrase, ""on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog," (from the famous New Yorker cartoon) returns 56,000 hits on Google.  I think this is because most people already understand that the Internet is made by people and therefore all of it is owned by someone, though they may be unclear as to who that someone is. Also, the article is already way too big as is.--Coolcaesar (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of bootstrapping? 

message: A few really smart people hooked up, a whole lot of, really dumb people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macmcrae (talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet functional specification 

message: I noticed today that a significant discussion re the capital 'i' had grown again in the first section of the article.  This is a main or overview article, therefore we cannot fully discuss every aspect of the internet in detail here.  There are a number of sub-articles referenced, and in this case the relevent one is given as Internet capitalization conventions in that section.  I moved the detailed discussion there. --Nigelj (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material and examples re capitalisation 

message: Here's the "please change X to Y" part (*sorry!*  I'm new!):
There's some gibberish in the "Email" section.  The second paragraph is poorly written and misleading as to the inherent security of email.  I can should just be deleted (nothing is lost).
Querent23 (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: - I agree that the paragraph didn't make much sense.  I deleted it.  --Andrew Kelly (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibberish in "Email" sections 

message: The first 3 paragraphs of this section seem to need work. As an introduction to the section, I'd think that it should try to summarize the section instead of delve into specifics. The intro mainly talks about social-networking websites. This is just one aspect of social impact of the internet. It should be made more general. It's fine to use these as examples, but it shouldn't be the crux of the intro. Unfortunately, it looks like this article can't be edited, but hopefully someone may read these comments and do something about it to ensure Wikipedia offers quality content. --0imagination (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Impact Section Really Needs Work

message: I find it hard to believe that there is no mentioning of Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn, the inventors of internet protocol and TCP mentioned in the history section of this page. Yet again, I can believe it since Wikipedia is full of inaccurate crap written by revisionists who want to rewrite historical facts.
If anybody has the authority and right to be claimed the inventor of the internet, it is in fact Cerf and Kahn. There's no mentioning of Leonard Kleinrock either. Unbelieveable.
And the sad part of it is, viewers who read this stuff will actually believe what is written on this Wiki page. I will definitely be referring to Encarta in the future from now on. --Yoganate79 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has the same problem as the articles on Freeways and Expressways. There are too many immature children, idiots, and cranks editing this article, so all the intellectuals who actually understand the history of computer science (including myself) get fed up and stop trying to improve this article, with the result that it is slowly falling apart.  I am too busy practicing law to work on anything but a few law-related articles like Lawyer. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbelievable

message: I am proposing that Internet capitalization conventions be redirected here. It doesn't make sense as a separate article, and the amount of space it'd take to cover it here to the extent it would need would be minimal. At best it's something to mention somewhere in our WP:MOS. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong Oppose it does make sense as a separate article, just needs more sourcing, and possibly a bit of a rewrite Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Strong Oppose This article is the general overview of a huge topic and is very big already.  It has been kept as brief as possible with lots of sections having 'Main' and 'See also' tags. This is growing topic, not a dying or minority-interest one: it should branch the reader into the many other specialised articles that already exist and are yet to be written. This is not the time to be shrinking it back down. --Nigelj (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Strong Oppose It doesn't make sense to merge that much standalone material into an already large article. Internet capitalization conventions is already linked as a  under Terminology but an argument could be made that it might be better to use the  template instead. Tothwolf (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Internet capitalization conventions]] 

message: Who owns the Internet? Where's the core? OlliffeΦObscurity 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no core, though the closest thing to a core (in terms of, if you take it out, you take out the whole network) would be the huge Tier 1 backbone providers and the ICANN rootservers that support DNS.  But there is so much redundancy in the system, because of peering agreements and Network Access Points between various levels of ISPs, that it would be difficult to bring the whole network down at once, although there have been some close calls when really severe security holes were discovered.  The Internet consists of thousands of smaller networks, each of which is owned by someone.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you for restraining yourself then. The Internet appreciates it. Gary King (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet Core

message: Is the figure quoted on the link at http://www.internetstopshere.co.uk/ anywhere even a ballpark figure? (The webpage is one of many such)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of the Internet