Talk:Usenet: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:37, 27 April 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Usenet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Usenet was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 14, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Internet B‑class Top‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics B‑class Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Excessive Formality?

The article makes sense if you already know what Usenet is. Sometimes words have different meanings in different contexts, and it seems like here people don't use the right word because it means something else in another context. (??) For example perhaps; "forums":

"Users read and post messages (called articles or posts, and collectively termed news) to one or more categories, known as newsgroups."

To me, "categories" here has zero explanatory power. How about: "...to one or more forums, known as newsgroups." Or "areas of interest?" While "categories" is 100% not false, it does so be being excessively vague, almost meaningless in this context. (Being 100% not false, is rarely a compliment.)

Consider the rest of the article similarly. Wiki's goal is communication and explanation, not "100% not false." Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without — Confucius,— or Perfect is the enemy of good. Excessive formality seems to be hindering clarity. Usenet was/is used by ordinary people using loose, ordinary language, lace on a pig seems counter to Wiki's goal: communication. Engineers should not explain ditch-digging.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 }}
 {{Backwards copy|url=https://uncensorednewsfeed.com/|title=Uncensored Usenet Newsgroups|year=2017<!-- our original content goes back well before 2010, their copy is as of 2017 -->}}
+== Excessive Formality?  ==
+The article makes sense if you already know what Usenet is.  Sometimes words have different meanings in different contexts, and it seems like here people don't use the right word because it means something else in another context. (??)  For example perhaps; "forums":
+ "Users read and post messages (called articles or posts, and collectively termed news) to one or more '''categories,''' known as newsgroups."
+To me, "categories" here has zero explanatory power.  How about: "''...to one or more '''forums,''' known as newsgroups."''  Or "''areas of interest?''"  While "categories" is 100% not false, it does so be being excessively vague, almost meaningless in this context. (Being 100% not false, is rarely a compliment.)
+Consider the rest of the article similarly. Wiki's goal is [[communication]] and explanation, not "100% not false." &nbsp;  Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without — Confucius,— or [[Perfect is the enemy of good]]. Excessive formality seems to be hindering clarity. &nbsp; Usenet was/is used by ordinary people using loose, ordinary language, lace on a pig seems counter to Wiki's goal: [[communication]]. Engineers should not explain ditch-digging. <BR>