Talk:Internet

Edit request from Isklar, 16 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This states that the USA laided down the foundations of the interent we knwo and use today, from my own vague knowledge i am fairly sure it was orginally developed at CERN, the science place. Should this not be mentioned as i think telling people that the USA did this is very misleading and stealing the credit?

Isklar (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. As noted in the text of the {{editsemiprotected}} template, "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"."

In addition, one of the core concepts of Wikipedia is verifiability. To that end, you must cite sources for factual changes to a well-established article like this. There are already sources cited in the article to prove the assertions that the United States' ARPANET was a predecessor of the Internet. --Darkwind (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe Isklar is thinking of CERN's role in the development of the World Wide Web, not the Internet. Tim Berners-Lee did his work there.Frappyjohn (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested edits for clarity

I would make the following edits if this page were not protected:

1) The phrase "both commissioned by the United States government to develop projects of its military agencies to build robust,..." is clunky. I like "both commissioned by American military agencies to build robust, ..."

2) The sentence beginning "Most traditional communications media, such as telephone and television services, are reshaped or redefined using the technologies of the Internet,": the verb should be "are being reshaped or redefined."

3) The following sentence is poorly written-- this reads as if BBN established that VACs were legalized in the U.S., which is not the case: "Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN), the private contractors for ARPANET, set out to create a separate commercial version after establishing "value added carriers" was legalized in the U.S.[6]."

Looking at the source document, a rewrite is: "Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN), the private contractors for ARPANET, set out to create a separate commercial version after the Federal Communications Commission permitted the establishment of value-added carriers in the U.S. [6]." Rohan.maddamsetti (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++ Could someone make the change in the history section from "London University" to "University of London"? "London University" was the old name of UCL before 1836, a different, but constituent, institution. It isn't a major point but the current version is wrong. Thank you. --109.149.114.234 (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Duplication of 'education'

A week ago, I found that User:Hallenrm had inserted a mention of self education into a random section of the article. I removed it and added a whole paragraph on the subject, since it was not mentioned. I now see that Hallenrm has gone ahead again and added another paragraph on the same subject in a different place. So now we have duplication again. I think the new sub-section and the para I added should be merged to become either a section or a paragraph, not both. What do others think? --Nigelj (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A little sectioning history

At one time, there were lots more named and specific subsections in this article, "5. Modern usage: 5.1 Workplace, 5.2 Mobile devices, 5.3 Market, 5.4 Collaboration, 5.5 Remote access." And "6 Services: 6.1 E-mail, 6.2 World Wide Web, 6.3 File sharing, 6.4 Streaming media, 6.5 Internet telephony". Then, on 18 September 2009, User:Gary King came along and removed all the detailed sub-headings, amalgamating the material into the large "5 Modern uses", and "6 Services: 6.1 Information, 6.2 Communication, 6.3 Data transfer" sections we see today.[1]. Personally, I preferred the more detailed headings, as, in a large article, I think they help people see what we cover and where. Perhaps, as part of fixing this duplication, we should re-add detailed subheadings within these section, so that users like Hallenrm could more easily have seen whether we cover 'education, and if so where. Again, thoughts of all parties welcome here. --Nigelj (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

For someone who wants to fly in and look something up or make a short contribution, the detailed section headers would be helpful. For someone who is going to sit down and read the article, the larger sections are an improvement. It is possible that User:Gary King's changes were premature but, larger sections is where an article needs to head as it matures. --Kvng (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Spelling error in the History section

"Moderate" is misspelled in the second sentence of the last paragraph of the History section. HTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.205.87 (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

looks like someone quietly fixed this for you. --Kvng (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to add reference

I would like to add a reference to this --> Ryan, Johnny, A History of the Internet and the Digital Future. London: Reaktion Books, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nethistory (talk • contribs) 09:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

I'm an Italian wikipedia user. In the Italian wiki one of the first information is that: "Internet (dal latino inter, "tra" e dall'inglese net, "rete", tra la rete)"||translated: Internet (from Latin inter, "between", and from English net, "net", between the net) Now, I can't see any reference in the same page on the English wiki. I'd like to know if this etymology is truthful or not, since this word was born in the English language. I hope for an answer, thanks, grazie! ^^ --PastaMGW (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The OED says "Internet" is from a shortening of "internetwork", "perhaps influenced by similar words in -net". "internetwork" in turn is (obviously) just the prefix "inter-" plus the word "network". So, the etymology you gave isn't quite right. I'll see about adding the info to this enwiki article. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. You were OK until you said "between the net". It refers for interconnections between networks. Separate computer networks (universities, businesses, telecom providers etc) connected together by 'inter-net' connections to make the internet. --Nigelj (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both! ^^ See you! --PastaMGW (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the present text on the origins of the term is slightly misleading. In RFC 675, the terms "internet" and "internetwork" (the former appearing to be an abbreviation for the latter) are not used as nouns, but as an adjectives. The first use of "an internet" or "the internet" will need to be found elsewhere. Rp (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Internet traffic growth

A very minor issue : this article states that "During the 1990s, it was estimated that the Internet grew by 100 percent per year, with a brief period of explosive growth in 1996 and 1997.[10]" . Since that is followed by numbers of users, this is a little bit misleading, and one might think the number of user doubled each year (which is contradicted by the graph below, showing a linear, and not exponential growth) .

I suggest, from the source 10 : "During the 1990s, it was estimated that the Internet traffic grew by 100 percent per year, with a brief period of explosive growth in 1996 and 1997. The mean annual growth in Internet users has been argued to be between 20% and 50%[10]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannezo (talk • contribs) 10:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it was confusing. I have tried to improve it. First I made the 100% figure clearer: it is an estimate for "the growth rate of traffic on the public Internet", according to the source. I took out the bit about 'explosive growth in 2 years as this may be misleading with regard to what actually happened in other nearby years. Having made the distinction regarding 'traffic', I put in the figures given for 'number of users'. The source paper appears to have been written in 1997, and revised in 1998 so I said 'late 1990s to cover this. Thank you for your suggestions. Do people think that's a fairer summary? --Nigelj (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Broken link "How the Internet Came to Be"

Wrong link on article "How the Internet Came to Be":

Now - http://www.internetvalley.com/archives/mirrors/cerf-how-inet.txt

Should be - http://www.netvalley.com/archives/mirrors/cerf-how-inet.txt

Wdigest (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done This prompted me to review the External links section. This is a great reference but not quite right for EL section. The corrected URL appears below. --Kvng (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

External links

I've removed the following from the External links section. They look like potentially good references but not appropriate for External links. --Kvng (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• "10 Years that changed the world" a look at the evolution of the Internet from 1995 to 2005
• CBC Digital Archives—Inventing the Internet Age
• History of the Internet
• How the Internet Came to Be
• The Internet Society History Page
• RFC 801, planning the TCP/IP switchover
• Manjoo, Farhad – The Unrecognizable Internet of 1996 – Slate
• Preparing Europe’s digital future – i2010 Mid-Term Review

Generally speaking I agree with your point, but please keep the How the Internet Came to Be in the External links section. I will keep it, if there will be space for only one link. Because this is ... Vinton Cerf, if you know what I mean. Wdigest (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have used the Cerf reference in the History section where citation was requested. --Kvng (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Internet capitalization in intro??

"See also: Internet capitalization conventions" -- what has that got to do with anything -- it looks like spam! 12:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.60.18 (talk)

Vandalism

Penis and poop network? How did that get in on a protected page? first paragraph. 173.54.216.132 (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have reverted it and informed the perpetrator. --Nigelj (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Great glad i could help! 173.54.216.132 (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

DNS root zone and the U.S. government

The government of the United States continues to have the primary role in approving changes to the DNS root zone that lies at the heart of the domain name system.

That claim is neither supported nor explained in DNS root zone, and is unreferenced. -- Beland (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where that came from, but it is (sort of) correct. The U.S. government continues to control the DNS root zone indirectly through the contract by which ICANN operates IANA on behalf of the U.S. government. (Remember, IANA in turn maintains and updates the root zone file.) Previously, there were two main contracts governing the ICANN/Department of Commerce relationship---the Memorandum of Understanding (later replaced by the Joint Project Agreement), and the IANA contract. The JPA contract has expired and was replaced by a very loose Affirmation of Commitments in 2009 (which essentially acknowledges that the transition of DNS control from the U.S. government to ICANN has largely taken place).

However, the IANA contract is still in effect, but is expected to come up for renewal this year. The Republican Party (which has retaken control of the House) is highly distrustful of any international institution the U.S. government does not directly or indirectly control. Therefore, it is likely that the Obama administration will quietly renew the IANA contract rather than risk an embarrassing confrontation with the Republicans on this issue (Obama will be concentrating on higher-profile issues like preventing a rollback of healthcare reform), thereby again reasserting the U.S. government's control over the root zone file. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Commercial role in the origin of the Internet

Hi Everybody! As an Internet user from the times of Gopher, WAIS, and Bulletin Boards, I found confusing the assertion: "The origins of the Internet reach back to research of the 1960s, commissioned by the United States government in collaboration with private commercial interests". I think it would be more accurate to say "...government and spurred by the scientific community and Academia". As far as I remember the commercial community (except for IBM and others interest in hardware), was extremely skeptical about the new "scientific" information exchange tool (yesterday's "geeks".) The creation of the WWW and of Gopher, later on, did not reduce the business community's disdain for the internet. Later, when Netscape appeared, some commercial interest showed-up; but was countered by many books and articles pleading for the non-commercialization of the Internet. Even Microsoft derided it and did not pay attention until Netscape had become 'the' web navigator (browser); but that's another history. Going too far back in search of originating ideas, can lead us to crediting the dreams of ancient geniuses and visionaries. It is the practical proposals that mark the real beginning of those visions. From this point of view, I cannot see a real role of business in the origins of the Internet.

(My apologies for possible violations) Alexandrod (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia article on ARPANET, and then go to a library and read some real books on Internet history (I've read nearly all of them, by the way) before further embarrassing yourself by displaying your abysmal ignorance in public. If you aren't familiar with the books on Internet history by Janet Abbate, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Katie Hafner, and Martin Campbell-Kelly, then you're way out of your league. ARPANET and Internet research was funded by the U.S. government, but was made possible by private contractors like BBN, computer manufacturers like Honeywell, communications contractors like AT&T, and academic think tanks like SRI. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

it is very important for you to search on google for all your work with its never ending wisdon written by the unknown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.224.173.13 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"The ARPANET was one of the eve networks of today's Internet"

What does "eve" actually mean? I'm assuming it means as in Adam-and-Eve, but it's not really an instantly clear word, so perhaps this could be rephrased. 86.130.99.187 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Kbrose (talk · contribs) --Kvng (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Small grammatical error

'Connected' TV needs good internet connection. The image quality is depends on internet speed. As example for standard image quality needs 1 Mbps internet speed for SD 480p, requires 2.5 Mbps for HD 720p quality and the top-of-the-line HDX quality needs 4.5 Mbps for 1080p.[22]

Is depends? Orly? a small gripe, but it really stuck out at me. 164.116.47.180 (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Orangemike (talk · contribs) --Kvng (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Internet

Todos dicen que Internet fue inventado por los americanos. Pero me di cuenta de que Internet fue inventado por el suizo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.75.140 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web. Oh, please use English on the English WP talk pages. --Cyclopia^talk 19:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Public Avialibility

I read through, but I could not find anything about when internet became available to the public, not just used for military and business use. Does anyone have any clue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.78 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well research funded by the US government was generally in the public domain. But I think the real question is about commercial use. I would divide the history into three eras: 1. before National Science Foundation Network (around 1985) when it was only used by computer researchers, 2. transitional period when other educational and research users were added and commercial vendors started, 3. Removal of NSF's Acceptable Use Policy (after 1995). Actually, reading your question again, I think you are talking about residential use? That was even later. Probably needs to be summarized here and detailed in the history article. W Nowicki (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See the article on the Commercial Internet eXchange (CIX). Also the History of the Internet article already includes the following:

Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1981 when the National Science Foundation (NSF) developed the Computer Science Network (CSNET) and again in 1986 when NSFNET provided access to supercomputer sites in the United States from research and education organizations. The ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990. Commercial internet service providers (ISPs) began to emerge in the late 1980s and 1990s and the Internet was commercialized in 1995 when NSFNET was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic.

Jeff Ogden (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The History needs to have the CSNET reference added to match "History of the Internet" article. As it is, it goes from ARPANET to NSFNET without noting the access was first expanded by CSNET. TcomptonMA (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually think the whole history section needs to get a haircut. As per WP:SUMMARY, History of the Internet should do the heavy lifting. --Kvng (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done I agree and so I went ahead and did it. The history section is shorter, but not short. More of a trim than a cut I guess. I used information from the History of the Internet article which had the benefit of mentioning CSNET, something requested by TcomptonMA. Jeff Ogden (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The internet is not based upon the TCP protocol

There are several applications (torrenting, game networks, video streaming applications, etc.) that do not use the TCP protocol at all. To say the Internet uses the IP/TCP protocol in the manner that it's based on such a protocol is misleading and even incorrect if looked at from a certain perspective. I've made changes according to the first line of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerquip (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The use of the name TCP/IP was restored. I agree that that is the right thing to do. When the name TCP/IP is used, it is referring not to the two protocols that make up the name (TCP and IP), but to the family of protocols that make up the Internet Protocol Suite. It doesn't really matter to this argument, but while it is true that some applications don't use TCP, almost all use IP. Jeff Ogden (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to perpetuate the inaccuracy, no more so than those in the know would use "baud" and "bits per second" completely interchangeably despite an alarmingly large number of people who do confuse them. Therefore I am removing the "TCP/" from the lead section. I really do not mean to start a continuous string of editing changes, but we'll see if this edit ultimately remains. -- Joe (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Internet first milestone

It seems to me that it will makes sense to include the following details to the first phrase of History section: In response to the launch of Sputnik, the US Department of Defense issues February 7th, 1958 the directive 5105.15 establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA).

The source can be for instance "The Roads and Crossroads of Internet History" http://www.netvalley.com/intval.html --Dril211 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Rendering problem?

I seem to be getting a strange rendering problem displaying this page on both Chrome and Firefox. See screenshot: http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/runescapeandmaple/internetrendering.jpg I've traced the problem to the

{{Area networks}}

code added by Cybercobra on 22:46, 1 March 2011. But since that has been a long time ago I think it's probably just me... but I can't rule out it being a Wikipedia problem. Any thoughts? EryZ (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

After receiving some feedback from people on Twitter that it is in fact rendering incorrectly I have just been bold and deleted that bit of code to render the page properly again. I don't know why it's doing that, so any help to fix the problem without having to delete the code would be appreciated. EryZ (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem was an unterminated table at Template:Area networks. Now fixed.-gadfium 07:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.123.246.147, 6 August 2011

Social impact 3rd paragraph last sentence

This is accomplished through software that filters domains and content so that they may not be easily accessed or obtained without elaborate circumvention.

Should be: This is accomplished through software that filters domains and content so that they may not be easily accessed or obtained without elaborate circumvention, such as a proxy server.

69.123.246.147 (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you feel this needs to be changed? I do not see the need to add in the example. Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

World Wide Web

The statement "the Web is one of the services communicated via the Internet" is vague. I don't know what that service is. People want to understand what the difference between the internet and the WWW is but there is no clear definition of that here.

Every journalist knows that there is no difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.45.193 (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be stated that the WWW is the http protocol, including HTML. If that is accurate, then that clarification would really help. Is there a RFC that defines what the World Wide Web is? I don't see one. Is there a list of RFCs that define the WWW?

173.55.37.192 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in when I created this. Sam Tomato (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The WWW is more than HTTP/HTML. I think this is fairly clear if you refer to the linked World Wide Web article. For good measure a summary of that, "It is a collection of interconnected documents and other resources, linked by hyperlinks and URLs." is already included after the sentence that confuses you. --Kvng (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 October 2011

THE INERNERT IS A SERIES OF TUBES! Forget2rembr (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Kevin.strong (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Small edit in History section:

Modification to correct confusing year reference:

"Commercial internet service providers (ISPs) began to emerge in the late 1980s and 1990s."

change to

Commercial internet service providers (ISPs) began to emerge in the late 1980s into the 1990s.

Role of web in the field of Internetworking

The Web has played an important role in making this world a Global Village but it could not be possible without the field of Internetworking. Do you agree? Justify your opinion with solid reasons in favor of your opinion.”

Role of web in the field of Internetworking

The Web has played an important role in making this world a Global Village but it could not be possible without the field of Internetworking. Do you agree? Justify your opinion with solid reasons in favor of your opinion.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.21.94 (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Backbone link

I changed the backbone link in the intro to point to Internet_backbone instead of network backbone, it seems the context here is referring more to the former.Paladin656 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mis-capitilisation

Under Modern Uses the first word of the third sentence (mobile) isn't capitalised.

Mis-capitilisation

Under Modern Uses the first word of the third sentence (mobile) isn't capitalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.233.222 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Kirstein

Can someone who is able to edit the article please redirect the Peter Kirstein link to the Peter T. Kirstein article, rather than leave it pointing to a Kirstein disambiguation page?

Overall phenomenon of "citizen activism" or the Internet's collective power for cyber policing or data mining or accomplishing tasks

So I came across the Dog Poop Girl incident (which later caused me to remember the "Gone. Shedding Your Identity in the Digital Age" article), and I noticed a phenomenon or two in these incidents. I read the Columbia Journalism Review article on Dog Poop Girl (about the power of Internet users to shame a woman and the revealing of all identity), and about the power of Internet users who uncovered every bit of info about Evan Ratliffe when he tried to disappear. In addition to the "power of collective Internet citizens to accomplish things", it also brings up the notion of Internet vigilantism and the notion of "intense data mining" by the collective force of Internet citizens. I noticed this phenomenon, but I couldn't find an article about it because this seems to be a more subtle notion. The article on citizen journalism is a kinda off from this subject, and the article on internet activism is a bit closer to this phenomenon while the article on internet vigilantism discusses the acts of cyber-policing, but this exact notion hasn't been addressed at all yet. This seems to be a more subtle and underlying effect of the Internet than the topics on internet activism, internet vigilantism, and citizen journalism, crowdsourcing (which are both a specific, well-noticed) subjects. I think these topics should be addressed in one overall article on the whole phenomena with sections describing and documenting these events and discussing them. I'm still trying to think of a proper term for these phenomena, but still I can't quite make of this topic and describe it clearly... Maybe you guys might be able to analyze it and provide better terminologies, summaries and explanations for these phenomena? I think this is certainly a form of internet activism, but I don't think the topic on the existing article quite applies to this phenomena. It's a different type of activism. The Columbia Journalism Review article mentions a (new) term "citizen cyber-police". Maybe an article can be created on citizen cyber-policing (Nvm, there's an article on Internet vigilantism) Maybe an article on the collective data mining or a better term? Or these phenomena can be addressed in an article on the collective force of the Internet? The article on data mining relates to corporate and governmental usage, and I don't think it should be merged with this type of "activism". I think this phenomenon of cyber-policing/cyber-journalism-cyber activism should be addressed in an article about the power of the collective force of the Internet. It relates more to the notion of internet activism and citizen journalism, data mining, and cyber policing. The article on internet vigilantism is there, but that's only one aspect of this phenomena. People on the Internet are able to accomplish things and find things more effectively. This is like crowdsourcing, but not this specific a subject. It's like the power of the collective conscience of the Internet and the activism and efforts that accumulate. What's a good term to use here? Sorry about the confusing proposal.

And to explain better, here's an excerpt from the Wired article:

What had started as an exercise in escape quickly became a cross between a massively multiplayer online game and a reality show. A staggeringly large community arose spontaneously, splintered into organized groups, and set to work turning over every rock in Ratliff’s life. It topped out at 600 Twitter posts a day. The hunters knew the names of his cat sitter and his mechanic, his favorite authors, his childhood nicknames. They found every article he’d ever written; they found recent videos of him. They discovered and published every address he’d ever had in the US, from Atlanta to Hawaii, together with the full name and age of every member of his family.

They discovered almost every available piece of data about Ratliff, in fact, except his current location.

Here's an excerpt about the other topic from a Washington post article:

According to one blog that has covered the story, "within days, her identity and her past were revealed. Requests for information about her parents and relatives started popping up and people started to recognize her by the dog and the bag she was carrying," because her face was partially obscured by her hair.

Online discussion groups crackled with chatter about every shred of the woman's life that could be found, and with debate over whether the Internet mob had gone too far. The incident became national news in South Korea and even was discussed in Sunday sermons in Korean churches in the Washington area.

I'm confusing myself, and I'm having a hard time trying to describe it, but I think this phenomenon should be written about/discussed/analyzed/documented. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I was originally going to post the above first, then add on, but it was worded very awkwardly and I still hadn't collected my thoughts, not to mention I found wiki articles discussing specific aspects of the phenomenon, so I posted it all at once after several edits. After I found the article on Internet vigilantism, half of my thoughts were answered. And the article on the Human flesh search engine deals with a different topic that's similar to the same concept. What should this article be called, or first, what should be in the article? Edit2: And now I remember crowdsourcing. Also, the sociology of the Internet doesn't quite address this phenomenon either.

Comments and interpretations are appreciated, and I hope someone can do a better job of describing, commenting on (and establishing the existence of) this phenomenon. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit3: See this comment as well (from the Cooks Source controversy): "Glenn Fleishman wrote that 'regardless of the provenance of the email, it was scary to watch the net awake as one.'" - M0rphzone (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Would the Sociology of the Internet article be a possible place for this information? Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but I'm not an expert on the subject, so this should probably be added by people who are familiar with the proper terms, etc. I'm assuming you understood what I was trying to say? - M0rphzone (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Social Impact

I'd like to add the following, if I could:

Though the internet has made information more readily available to people, it is difficult to believe that anything could be found online that could not be found somewhere in a library (including media and music). That's because it seems strange to think that authorities would not de facto or de jure wish to monitor all information to enhance policing. Given that authorities have more available technologically and otherwise than an everyday people, it's probably true that the internet is de facto highly patrolled (IP addresses secretly recorded, etc.). This is evident even in the most progressive attempts to use "social media" for liberation. Wikipedia, for instance, had to at some point start protecting webpages from editing and records IP addresses when a person does not sign into an account. Webpages, too, cost money to maintain as a first listed simple "www" address, making the internet, like the rest of services in the world, highly influenced by corporate and special group interests, moreso than by simple individuals without much power or influence. The result is that the internet, while seemingly outside the realm of government or authority control, is in fact much less free than many would like to think.

Some also worry that, rather than making the internet a place friendly to intellectual curiousity, creativity, and integrity, the internet has become a place of trivial pursuits and degeneration of personal character. This is evident in the ways in which people use strange acronyms, colloquialisms and broken sentences as language in "social media" sites, blogs, and chat sites, to communicate idle concerns rather than well-formed, well-conceived sentences to portray complex ideas and sentiments. It's also evident in pervasive bullying, harassment, and abuse, rather than respect and manners on these same "social media" sites. In this sense, some criticize the internet for creating a culture of insolent and idle people, rather than knowledgeable, creative, intelligent (and dare I say, civil) persons.

There are worries as well, that the predominance of internet use over actual social interaction creates societies of isolated people, ironically while being heavily invested in "social media" communication.