|WikiProject Internet culture||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Notation
- 2 Google is polluting its newsgroup archives
- 3 External links
- 4 Moderation
- 5 Verifiability
- 6 Newsgroups "precursor" of WWW?
- 7 minor important addition to article, tho messed up.
- 8 MUCHA LANA (removed)
- 9 history of newsgroups
- 10 Programa EXCLUSIVO - Realmente Funciona (CONTENT DELETED)
- 11 Added to the lead
- 12 Cum sa faci bani pe net (CONTENT DELETED)
- 13 filme (CONTENT DELETED)
- 14 Revising links list
- 15 Payservers
- 16 soc.culture
- 17 Rewrite
In the various articles about newsgroups, Usenet, list of newsgroups, and other places on Wikipedia, there are at least three different standards uses for listing a newsgroup in an article. Those three standards are:
Which of these three is the "correct" way to list a newsgroup in a Wikipedia article? Personally I think the italicized version should be correct, but I'm not sure if there is an "official" way to list a newsgroup. --Modemac 18:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Google is polluting its newsgroup archives
I removed two advertising links, when the link contains a flashy site with little informational value and general phrases but with affiliate links to usenet providers to earn on referrals, maybe there are more garbage links like that, I didn't check them all, just those two I saw in the past.
Why cite these two sites in particular ? "Google Groups" is not synonymous with "web2news" (neither is individual.net synonymous with NNTP server, moreover their server will remain free only until end of March)Apokrif 11:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm against those "no external links" talebans. According to them, the only external links allowed are the ones to Google websites and the like, which is a great limitation to the concept of the Web, and an insult to the Wikipedia philosophy. It seems that only the websites owned by big companies can be linked, ignoring the efforts and the contribute of independent webmasters that help the Web to grow and remain free. Remember that for the big companies we are just costumers, not users.
- For this article I propose to revert to this version: 03:54, 3 May 2006 126.96.36.199 (broken link) --188.8.131.52 07:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a link directory. Basically, external links are not appropriate for Wikipedia. They are allowed in some rare cases. Notability is one of the criterions. Not having a site linked from Wikipedia should not be taken as disrespectful. The revision you suggest has many sites that clearly do not belong in a Wikipedia External links section. Haakon 08:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree only if all links to major websites (including Google) are removed altogether. Otherwise I think relevant websites should be linked to articles. Also, There's nothing in the "external links guidelines" that supports your point of view. I've added a comment to the talk page there --184.108.40.206 10:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- DMOZ is a main site, but open. Does it make everybody happy? Otherwise, remove it... --Eltener 07:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody add content decribing moderation of USENET newsgroup?
- Wouldn't that involve discussing the concept of the "approved" line in a header? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
By what specific method are these facts verifiable? Is it acceptable practice to discuss newsgroups when the guidelines for reliable sources say otherwise? This question may appear to be silly, however, it is in regard to better documentation for Wikipedia. Ste4k 00:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place to expound on first-hand knowledge. It is a place to state what verifiable sources have to say on a subject, and those sources must be secondary. As things stand the entire article is first-hand knowledge. It needs a lot of references before it can be considered a true encyclopedia article. DQweny (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
"...and those sources must be secondary"
- Sorry to disagree, but the source you cited not only does not say that, the string "second" is not found in the text of the article on Verifiability at all. However, there is a wikilink there to the proper reference page. You may want to take a chance to read and consider it. Cherry picking some choice quotes from the proper citation (WP:PSTS): "Our policy: Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." So, no, the statement "sources must be secondary" is not within the bounds of the exact same Verifiability concept you pointed to; I'm simply having trouble verifying that your opinion on the matter is correct. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Newsgroups "precursor" of WWW?
The lead section says:
- "Newsgroups of the 1980s thus became the precursor to the World Wide Web of the 1990s."
This seems quite misleading to me, except in the weak sense that ngs existed before the WWW. You could equally (and perhaps more accurately) say that FTP and Gopher (and even email) were precursors of the Web. I'd suggest deleting this sentence unless it can be reworded to be more meaningful. (And, come to think of it, did they become the precursors or were they the precursors?) AndrewWTaylor 16:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- No comments on this for 2 weeks - I'll delete the sentence; and also the inappropriate mention of Outlook Express AndrewWTaylor 12:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
minor important addition to article, tho messed up.
I added a link to the web archive from wayback machine (I can only add references via wayback machine @ my station)a site that lists all the usenet hierarchies in alphabetical order, but the link appears as a 1 @ the bottom of the article. I invite any who would be willing to teach me to do this better, to so do (I have always preferred the awkward "so do", and variants to ending sentences with prepesitions).Thaddeus Slamp 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Of course it would also be nice if someone fixxed my fix, without removing it, since I think that the basic idea is a pretty darned good one.Thaddeus Slamp 16:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
MUCHA LANA (removed)
history of newsgroups
While I agree the "precursor" comment (above) was misleading, I think some sense of history should be included in the introduction. Newsgroups were the first main way networked discussion happened - before the the Internet was widely used. It would also be nice to give a sense of the extent of usage (I have not read the whole article so not usre if this is in there somewhere). Clearly Newsgroups are a less significant part of all networked discussion now than they were at one time but have they declined in an absolute sense? Fholson 11:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Spam removed. -nickerbocker
- In the 1980s there were lots of BBS'es with "message areas" - not "newsgroups" - but they were treated the same way by the sysops that ran their systems. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Programa EXCLUSIVO - Realmente Funciona (CONTENT DELETED)
Added to the lead
I've added a bit to the lead about newsgroups remaining popular despite the advent of torrents, online forums, etc. I think it's worth expanding on this point for this article. In Internet terms, newsgroups are an ancient technology, and efforts are being made to shut them down from the ISP level, yet according to Wiki's own Usenet article the amount of material available via newsgroups continues to increase. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Cum sa faci bani pe net (CONTENT DELETED)
filme (CONTENT DELETED)
I'm revising the links list to remove links that do not point to sites or resources specifically about newsgroups. Rationale: we have other articles in Wikipedia which are about Usenet in general; presumably the reader will click to these articles and follow the related links therein.
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. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Searching for non-socio-cultural subjects in groups named like that might be comparable to noticing Latin (or Esperanto) porns called "interrecial" or "ethnic" (bad Anglo-Saxon imHo). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
>"A Usenet newsgroup is a repository usually within the Usenet system, for messages posted from many users in different locations. Despite the name, newsgroups are discussion groups, and are not devoted to publishing news."
I think this should be changed to: "Usenet newsgroups are discussion groups within Usenet and, later, the Internet systems. Newsgroups don't publish news per se, the name comes from the term "Netnews," which initially referred to technical developments and subsequent discussion. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)