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)

I am gay and i like internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.233.119 (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2010 (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)