From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Usenet was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
March 14, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Internet (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics  (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Applied Linguistics Task Force.


A Comparison of payservers needs to be made. Divide into blockaccounts (ie Astraweb, ...) and servers requiring a subscription (ie Giganews). Appearantly many ISP's disallow the downloading of binaries via usenet groups and/or don't allow the use of it al all. Payservers appearantly work around this problem. (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Overlooked emergent fact about UseNet[edit]

On the main page:

... because article storage expires in relatively short order anyway.

Articles have completely failed to "expire" as of early September 2008. Everything before this date is long gone.

But EVERYTHING after that date is now a permanent record.

I know the cry of "new research" is just waiting to pounce here, but give it a thought and see if somehow this complete paradigm shift in human knowledge storage can't be mentioned and investigated.

Major UseNet service providers are increasing "retention" at the same rate as the passage of time. This has the potential for being the cheapest free "cloud storage" system ever conceived. Post valuable digital data and it will be there for retrieval for the foreseeable future.

Drastically falling storage rates has made it relatively cheap to offer (currently 2012-10-06) 1500 days retention. Subtract your current date from my date and you have the exact increase in advertised retention rates. and the National Film Registry protect for posterity data deemed worthy. UseNet protects for prosperity EVERYTHING anyone wants to post.

As mentioned, cancellation is pretty much a dead issue, not the least of which no commercial service is likely to invest in what it takes to coordinate a complete removal of any one article. All you need is one maintained server to ignore removal requests and propagating will put it all back.

Nobody could get rid of a single byte no matter their determination.

OK, lots of supposing on my part. So here's the deal - post anything to alt.binaries.multimedia and when it expires and is no longer available anywhere (I'm not even counting archives) and then remove this as proven false. Until then - at least suspect that it might be true.

PcGnome (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a creative interpretation of statistics. 1000-1500 days retention is now the norm for the major Usenet providers, but it would be original research and crystal ball gazing to say that any binary file posted on Usenet today will still be available in five or ten years' time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Introduction: "(If all goes well)"[edit]

I don't think that is helpful. What can go wrong and why? Does the usenet network have/develop any partitions intentionally or otherwise? Prodded, left unanswered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"If all goes well" seems to be referring to the completion rate of Usenet newsgroups. No Usenet server promises a 100% completion rate, but most promise 99% plus, eg here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
There are private hierarchies that deliberately limit distribution, and some news servers run spam filters. Of course not propagating certain articles further is the intended behaviour in these cases.
More relevantly, it occasionally happens that one news server emits an article that another thinks is malformed, and that can limit propagation of the affected articles. At least one of the servers involved (or the specification) has to be buggy for this to happen of course, but it isn't theoretical; a real example was discussed on in August last year. Ewx (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


Just a heads up, today's xkcd appears to reference this article in a way which actively encourages modifying it to change the first mentioned NASDAQ100 company. This would appear to explain why there are so many IP editors changing the article today. Given xkcd's large readership, this article will probably need a major cleanup tomorrow or on Wednesday, to make sure none of the editors have changed the article for the worse. (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that you may have accidentally posted this to the wrong talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
@Guy Macon - why do you believe that? mabdul 04:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Because today's xkcd has absolutely nothing to do with Usenet. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hover over the first image... mabdul 07:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
How does it refer to USENET?? Rp (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Like any other article, we'll revert them and ban any that do it too much. - Denimadept (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
It won't be a problem, because the XKCD page has no references to USENET on it. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Diddly Squat. Scratch. Nullity. Zip. Naught. Bupkus. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The content of this particular comic changes dynamically, see e.g. [1]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Aha! Mystery solved. I had checked it a bunch of times but only saw the university and the NASDAQ-100 company changing, not the Wikipedia page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

there is a few errors in the article[edit]

registration is required so that is one error. i also couldnt find out anything about the cost to use it so that needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The cost issue has still not been addressed. Is it still free? Or $2-$4/month? -- (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford
What cost? Through which company? This is not an advertising article for one of many companies. - Denimadept (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Usenet does not have a cost. That's like asking how much the World Wide Web costs. --SubSeven (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point. To the OP: how does one "register" with the web or USENET? I'm curious. :-) - Denimadept (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No "Use" in the Usenet article?[edit]

I'm not sure that Usenet merits an article that is all past-tense. Is it really THAT dead!?
    It seems the article would benefit from a section on how modern users use it--for neophytes this needs to be explicitly enunciated...what's modern, what's just memories. Recognizing Usenet's past culture, I'd think emphasis on cost free or near-free usage would be in order. (Remember when Usenet was considered part of basic Internet service?) For example, it's unclear if one can still post via Deja or Google's Web interfaces (without registration). In my mind this this should go before the historic and technical sections, perhaps even in the lead. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)

If these are in the article, I couldn't find them, hence my suggestion of putting that info in its own section. Also, it seems like there is too much jargon, (again, oriented to past users...that dusty, cryptic feel.) Thanks!
-- (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

History is all past-tense. If you have something you want to say about what's going on with it now, feel free. - Denimadept (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Care to help? -That was kind of my point, it reads like all-history. And it's been 3? years since I've done Usenet so I'm not a good source, —but looking to get back in, I find almost exclusively outdated historical material (worst of all:) old but undated but written in the present tense. A newbie could find that to be an unrecognized, —therefore insurmountable,— problem.
After some searching, here is something that does NOT seem old and dreary: Quotes:

What Is Usenet and Why Should I Care?
First, let’s talk about a system nearly everyone is familiar with, BitTorrent. Torrents are a form of distributed file sharing. ....
By contrast Usenet is private, secure, and as fast as your broadband connection can handle. What exactly is Usenet and how does it provide these things?

While Wiki discourages "how-to"s, many of those modern analogies & much of that info is critical for newbies today to Understand Usenet, —Wiki's mission. Terms like "BBS" are friendly but arcane nods to old-timers like me (us?). (Yet inappropriate jargon is one my pet peeves.) The above article says Usenet costs a few dollars (after the free trials). True? Then free Deja (now Google?) or Google's Web interfaces are no longer available? Yes/No?
Shouldn't the article mention Google's apparent unending effort to ruin usage of the term "Usenet" and replace it with a term they like better..."Newsgroups?" ...and their related efforts to seemingly mentally smudge and mingle Usenet with their "Google Groups" that they call (re-brand) "Newsgroups?" Certainly those confusing terms/usages need to be mentioned, if not defined. That failure would not meet wiki specs, no? (branding re-brand, de-brand?)
-- (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

USENET Access via the Web[edit]

USENET Access via the Web should be in the article. One can still read Usenet (at least the text forums). I used a roundabout method, I googled the desired newsgroup plus the keywords.
I did snag the thread I was looking for, first try, (one of the longest natural threads in Usenet history, "1,329 posts by 140 authors,") on a well-used political debate forum. Yes a Web interface is rather awkward compared to a newsreader, yet I'm guessing it could be the best method for occasional USENET usage, plus the menus are similar to Web-shopping and so forth.

I googled The Nazis were liberals? Those results gave me a thread that was sorted according to relevance and needed to be sorted according to chronological order for the debate to make sense, so I ended up here:!topic/ My impression is, I could do anything, go anywhere USENET from those menus.

I didn't try to post anything (reply) since I presume one must now sign up (or register) for free. True? ...Anybody?

(The above thread was also crossposted to these popular debate newsgroups:

alt.california,,   alt.conspiracy,,,    ca.politics    talk.politics.misc ) 

-- (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Web access via Google Groups is mentioned in the article. This allows access only to the text based groups, and not to binary files which use formats such as yEnc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I wanna re-emphasize that as USENET info on the Web continues to grow more stale, incorrect, and misleading, the importance of the tone and info here will also grow.
  BTW, is full USENET service still under $6/month?
-- (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Methods of access such as that aren't relevant. How people get to USENET is up to them. Cost is up to them as well. I get it for 10euros/year, for instance. - Denimadept (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Almost all groups supposedly spam[edit]

"Almost all unmoderated Usenet groups have become collections of spam unrelated to the ostensible subject of the group" is an essentially objective claim, if it's true then you should be able to find some numbers somewhere demonstrating it. Personally last time I checked the claim didn't seem to be true. If I put the results of that directly into WP then that would be "original research", of course. Ewx (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a separate article called Newsgroup spam which also has a tendency to rely on original research. While it isn't in dispute that there is a lot of spam on Usenet, the above statement needs qualifying and sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No mention of ClariNet?[edit]

Why not add a note about ClariNet as it used the Usenet protocol and was carried at many Universities on their Usenet servers? clari.feature.dave_barry in particular was a very popular feed that was read (and copied) by many.

Topher67 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Find some references... Jeh (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Usenet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)