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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of reference work-related subjects 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.
I was looking at an old version of my home page, something I had maintained between 1996-1999, and saw that I had written this "The Global Encyclopedia. Which is the only free encyclopedia in the world." and provided a hyperlink to http://126.96.36.199/ . I can't recall anything about this internet encyclopedia any longer, but given my time of writing this, it would have been a fairly early effort, potentially worth listing in this article, if information from a reliable source could be found. Can anyone locate information about this? Brianwc (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Just when I was ready to give up, I may have answered my own question. An article from 1995 discusses the Global Encyclopedia at length, in a highly critical manner, in what would now be seen as the same objections Wikipedia faced in its early days (and sometimes still faces?). James Rettig, "Putting the Squeeze on the Information Firehose: The Need for 'Neteditors and 'Netreviewers" 15th Annual Charleston Conference on Library Acquisitions (Nov. 3, 1995). The date of this article demonstrates just how early the "Global Encyclopedia" effort must have been. Additional sources should be sought and then perhaps a short summary could be added to this article. Brianwc (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The lead for Internet encyclopedia seems to leave off with an overview of a 1993 project that eventually failed. I think it be appropriate to describe what happened to internet encyclopedias since. Something like: 'Since the project, internet encyclopedias have substantially grown in accessibility (or popularity).' FactoidDroid (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move.Cúchullaint/c 16:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Support It's a series of tubes. Randy Kryn 19:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose "online" has several different meanings, being on the internet is just one of them. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
184.108.40.206 Which definitions of "online"/"online encyclopedia" do you think would cause confusion?
While I think it may be fair to comment that "Internet encyclopedia" would be widely interpreted as being descriptive of an "Internet-based encyclopedia" I think that it also fair to comment that this term is also ambiguous.
First off, lol at the idea that this is somehow less precise. L. O. L. Support as proposed. RedSlash 05:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection to the move, although this broadens the scope. An "online encyclopedia" merely needs to be hosted on a computer (network); there could be private online encyclopedias hosted on private networks; information services such as CompuServe hosted encyclopedias (primitive compared to this one) back in the day. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That's why you get movement on the Ngram starting around 1980. People weren't using the Internet in the 1980s to access those online encyclopedias. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
It looks like this list duplicates a lot of list of Internet encyclopedias while also linking to it. What is the basis for including some but not others? I see there's a section for "current" and one for those "no longer online", which would seem to be inclusive of everything. Any reason not to remove the list and leave the Main template? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Done Merged one to the list article and removed as redundant. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)