This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Surely the third and fourth paragraphs should be removed? The first two cite decent sources indicating that there is no real danger. Then after that, the third and fourth paragraphs talk about specific examples of organizations that believed it was dangerous. It doesn't seem to flow sensibly, and there are no links. I mean, what even is the "Progressive Librarians Guild"? Copying it into the search bar, I see that it's a recently-founded American association for libraries not following the status quo. Great sources on Wi-Fi safety, then. Vanhedrarn (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I removed them. Bhny (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
While specifications define communications protocols such as the IEEE 802.11-family, Wi-Fi is, AFAIK, something like a brand name (like Centrino). Sure as hell, Wi-Fi is NOT a technology, though some morons keep writing that. Though the adherence to the specifications should result in hard- and software that simply works together, somehow, Wi-Fi is supposed to additionally guarantee that hardware of different manufacturers works together (actually, that is what the protocol is design for...). I think this is also supposed to be tested. So Wi-Fi would be a brand-name/certification. But it ain't! Anybody who tested (or read about tests, e.g. http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/) knows that hardware of different manufactures, on a regular basis, do not work as well together as should be expected. Sometimes even of the same manufacturer... in other words: Wi-Fi yet another creation of the various over-funded marketing departments. User:ScotXWt@lk 23:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The link cited to support the assertion of the date for the name being first used commercially goes to a document that is completely irrelevant. In fact, the owners of the registered trademark asserted the "first use in commerce" by its certified members as August 1999. It's not clear why they waited until 2001 to file the official "allegation of actual use" for the trademark registration. I will attempt to amend the cite to reference the TSDR record of the USPTO for that registration. If anyone can document an earlier usage, i.e., prior to the initial release of 802.11b, please feel free to chime in. Lupinelawyer (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
According to the Wi-Fi Alliance, the trademarked name is rendered as "Wi-Fi", no more, no less, with capitalization exactly as shown. The article should not state "... also spelled Wifi or WiFi, ...", or any other variations. Wikipedia is increasingly being used as a reference by various news outlets and it should not be in the business of disseminating misinformation. — QuicksilverT@ 19:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not "misinformation" to state that "Wi-Fi" is commonly spelled as "WiFi" or "Wifi"; that is easily verified. Yes, it would be misinformation to claim that either of those is an approved name per the Wi-Fi alliance, but the article never did that. My recent edit to the "The name" section makes it more clear that the alternate renderings are not official. Wikipedia does not ignore facts of common usage, even in prominent places such as article titles: See WP:COMMONNAME. Jeh (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I added back WiFi as per WP:COMMONNAME. I wasn't sure about re-adding Wifi as I think just capitalizing the "W" is unusual. I've see all lower-case "wifi". Bhny (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)