Talk:World Wide Web

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article World Wide Web is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 1, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept
November 5, 2004 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing  (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Technology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Java and JavaScript[edit]

Java and JavaScript are way too specific for an article about the Web as a whole. If we devoted sections to these then we'd also have to devote sections to Flash, Silverlight, VBScript, CSS, SVG, XML, etc. Much better to instead have just one section that talks about web pages in general and the content they made contain. I've started this section off by merging the content from the Java and JavaScript sections, but it will need lots more rewriting to be up to par. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Section removed. I moved JavaScript part up to Ajax. The Java bit was an apology more than anything useful. You're welcome to do your rewriting but I think not needed as it was and it has been a month. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Section : CHACHING[edit]

Random section about minor point??? (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

More than 1 billion internet users now online[edit]

Maybe it could worthj mentioning? "Comscore, a company that tracks internet usage, calculates that 1 billion people who logged on to the world wide web in December 2008 – the first time this number have ever been online in a single month." Source: [1] (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

World Wide Web - Dispute of sites[edit]

I have been trying to find where to contact if there is a rogue type of site that was originally set-up with permission, relationship terminated, but control of the site is continuing without authorization utilizing information prior to the desolution of the business relationship? Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Web with a capital W[edit]

I know it's been done to death, as has the I on internet, but there seems to be some overkill here by those who love their capital Ws. First, please note that a small w for the web now seems to be universal in print and in the press in the UK, so this is only under discussion because someone somewhere has already established that the web is mostly American and so this article should use US spelling conventions.

First, what does this unreferenced sentence mean? "Additionally, Web (with a capital W) is used to indicate its status as an abbreviation", found under 'WWW prefix'?

Second, can we agree that, even if THE Web is a grand thing, even more important than the sun, that needs a capital letter, there are other uses of the the word in this article that do not even refer to THE Web. I refer to adjectival uses. So can we do without the capital on some or all of these? Web server, Web page, Web languages, Web resources, Web sites, Web addresses, Web beacons, Web standards, Web content, Web technology, Web searches, Web response times, Web traffic and Web editor.

One logical reason for this (apart from asking who capitalises adjectives anyway?) is that even if THE Web needs capitalising, then many people including web designers and web authors hold, at home and at work on their computers many potential web things that are not part of THE grand, unified Web. These may include a web server, several web pages, written in future web languages (like HTML 5), that are not publicly available web resources, parts of potential web sites... you get my drift - items from all of the above list that are web-like but not part of the grand public World Wide Web.

So can I go ahead and tone this capitalisation down a bit? --Nigelj (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have left this note here for best part of a month, and now gone ahead and done as described. I also removed that baffling, unsourced sentence. --Nigelj (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Hurrah for those who are working on these issues: Thank you.

In general, I am for fewer capital letters... although I can live with... indeed like... capitals in "World Wide Web". Not strictly so, I know, but I can stand that on the grounds that it is almost a proper noun, as in "Tim Berners-Lee". And on readablility grounds... If my eyes scan "world wide...", my brain has started down different paths, none leading to "world wide web". The capitals keep me on track.

BUT!.... Please, please, please: No capital "I" on "internet"??? !

If someone more "into" Wikipedia "discussions" than I also feels that it is a good idea, maybe start a separate topic to explore the communities wishes on that point?

Tkbwik (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Speed Issues[edit]

It's entirely unclear what is meant by "speed issues", "latency", and "response times" in this article. Are we talking about time to ping the webserver, connect to the web service, get the page headers, get partial content, get the entire page, or get the entire page with all embedded elements completely rendered? Presumably time to return the entire body, but that's an educated guess rather than what the page informs me of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC) No, latency means how long (after a browser asks a web server for something... anything, really) does it take for a web server to respond. The more time (generally measured in miliseconds) it takes for the server to respond, the higher the latency. When latency is high, that means that the server either cannot cope woith the number of requests per second it is reciving, or or it means that the browser's connection to the internet is slow. Since latency times can varry dynamicly due to changing circumstances of loading on the server, latency goes up and down all the time for any particular web page, even if the web page content might remain static (or not, as the case may be). Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

alternatives to the www. prefix[edit]

I was hoping this page would mention, or link to a page listing, common other url prefixes besides www. I'm thinking of m. myself. Mathiastck (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this help? Addressing Schemes. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if Mathiastck was talking about the 'www' in, for example, rather than the 'http'? If so, the answer is that there is no technical 'meaning' to this whatsoever. The people who created the site could have chose any combination of valid characters, or none at all. For example,,,, and, indeed, are all valid, although no website may have actually been published using some of them. The http part (the scheme) has a precise technical meaning, and the last two (or three, in e.g. parts (the domain) have to be registered and paid for with a valid domain name authority, but the bit between these two parts is entirely up to the publisher of the site. This is covered in World Wide Web#WWW prefix and in more detail in URL and URI scheme#Generic syntax, although it does get complicated as you dig deeper and none of these really tackle the simplest cases, I don't think. Maybe we should make the basics clearer, here or somewhere? --Nigelj (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

More eyes, please?[edit]

Could a few other experienced editors have a look at Global Internet usage and its recent Talk? I am a bit worried by the low quality of this article, but would appreciate other input. --Nigelj (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


The opening sentence named "www" an abbreviation for "world wide web." While this may be true in written English, it's hardly true in spoken English. Maybe a better word than abbreviation can be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In this instance (indeed, in most instances) the word abbreviation does not refer to the number of syllables when spoken aloud; it refers to abbreviating a series of words to initial letters. So www (in capitals or in lowercase) is indisputably an abbreviation of the noun-phrase world wide web. As an aside, it's a shame TBL didn't think about the convoluted multi-syllable spoken pronunciation when he hit on the name. But then no-one gets everything right ;) (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by Net News? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I rather type rather than (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I rather type rather than (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Web is dead?[edit]

I guess not. Don't know who started this thread, but there is nothing here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert Cailliau[edit]

I think Robert Cailliau is not getting the credit he deserves in this article. So far I have not seen any other article about the subject that does not portray the creation of the World Wide Web as a coordinated effort of the two. I wonder if some anglospheric bias is at work here. I strongly suggest to improve the article in this regard.

Ummm what more credit does he deserve besides proposing the use of Hypertext in WWW? Tim Berners lee already had hypertext, ENQUIRE, Robert didn't actually invent anything Tim didn't already. Tim did all the development. Tim made the first proposal. Robert wasn't even working on anything similar until he collaborated with Tim. He wrote the first Web page editor/browser (“WorldWideWeb”) and the first Web server. It was Tims baby, and it was Tim's invention. He invented the basis of the technology not Robert. HTML, URI, and HTTP. It seems like YOU are trying to give someone more credit than they deserve.

Robert even says here and i quote:

"But it is one thing to have an idea, quite another to put it into practice. And that's where Tim Berners-Lee comes in. Tim had an idea, and the means to turn it into reality. When I first started working with him, his idea had no name at all. In May 1990, we decided it needed a name. I had strong ideas about what the name shouldn't be. No Greek gods or Egyptian pharaohs, much in vogue among the physics community. Nothing all in capitals either, but something concise. I might as well have saved my breath, because Tim knew already that he'd call his invention the World Wide Web. Even before it had spread beyond a few physics labs, Tim knew where it was going."

If Robert knows his place, why can't you accept it too?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:9080:BDD4:39A2:793D (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC) 

The Web - how to write?[edit]

Is it not wrong to write "web browser" without capitalisation of the first letter? The "Web browser" would be the right way I suppose, as the word Web stays for the one World Wide Web. Sae1962 (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

See the section above under "Web with a capital W" for an explanation of why "The Web" and "web browser" are different things. Personally I don't think it needs capitalising at all, since I wouldn't write "the Web" any more than I would write "the Telephone Network". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Privacy article[edit]

I belive it is biased because it says things like "consumers save time and money." How would we change this part of the article. Should it be wikified? (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi I wrote much of it (and I took out some 'who' tags that didn't make any sense because of citations). At least there is a privacy section. You're welcome to improve it if you can. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I added bits of protocol and markup to #Function section[edit]

I added simplified actual HTTP request, response, and basic HTML for Wikipedia's WWW page itself to the #Function section in rev 416122559. It's computer code that lengthens the section, but I think it's important to show the underlying software for what billions of us use every day isn't arcane rocket science, just mumbo-jumbo syntax around some basic concepts. So I hope the powers that be allow this substantial change to survive. It would be nice to be able to say that "One of the reasons for the ascendance of the World Wide Web over other hypertext systems is its relative simplicity and use of somewhat human-readable text for HTTP, HTML and URLs", but I don't have a citation for that claim. -- Skierpage (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

CNAME vs DNAME[edit]

As far as I know, the statement "The use of a subdomain name is useful for load balancing incoming web traffic by creating a CNAME record that points to a cluster of web servers. Since, currently, only a subdomain can be cname'ed the same result cannot be achieved by using the bare domain root." in the article is wrong. I thought it is not CNAMEing but DNAMEing that allows load balancing since a CNAME only remaps one sub-domain to another. It is a DNAME that allows remapping different sub-domains to different IPs - or am I misunderstanding something here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by String42 (talkcontribs) 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Francis Gurry patent idea[edit]

I don't know where to best include Francis Gurry's comments regarding patenting. World Wide Web#Standards? Web standards? A (new) criticism section? Does anyone have any good ideas/advice? Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure those comments are notable---they weren't picked up by other major sites like CNET or the major news sites like CNN. If you look at the underlying source of that, it's an article on BoingBoing by Cory Doctorow, whose bias on IP issues is well-known. Also, notice the three-month gap between when the comments were made and when Doctorow first raised them. If this was a big deal it would have hit the headlines the next day. This is a really minor issue and I doubt it deserves any space in this already sprawling article.--Coolcaesar (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding bias, that's noted and could be covered by putting a reference to the underlying source in any inclusion. Many notable writers are biased but that doesn't mean their comments should be excluded - in fact, inclusion of their comments is in accordance with WP:NPOV (assuming no undue weight is given). As for being picked up by "other major sites", TechEye is notable and is a reliable source, so that's fine. Even if an article is sprawling, that's not a good reason for omitting further information. The sprawling parts could be rewritten or spun out to their own articles. -- Trevj (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Accessible Authorship and This Article's Bias[edit]

1)The WWW was chock full of "easy to use" authorship tools, software, and services before the turn of the millennium. lets think for 2.3 seconds... Geocities hosting, Live Journal, and a literal avalanche of individual bulletin boards and bulletin board software come to mind. This is just a sampling of what was available in the 1990s. There were boatloads of other easy to use, cheap/free, general-public accessible authorship methods that ran the gamut of possibilities. Wikis and Web 2.0 are BRAND NEW in this regard. People tend to completely ignore what happened before they embraced the internet when broadband, fast/cheap hardware and software, and button-laden GUIs became pervasive. 2)While I understand that this article is about the WWW, as opposed to the internet in general or a different protocol/network, I think it is inaccurate and misleading to completely ignore the conceptual/intellectual and physical basis upon which the WWW was built: the public and private/government internet that evolved from the Arpanet and related networks. As I said, the WWW was conceived as serving a different purpose. But the conceptual underpinnings of the internet are imbedded in the already existing internet of the time. The hardware and software underpinnings, also, evolved from preexisting examples that were developed for the Arpanet and later public networks. The WWW was not invented from scratch. It was conceived as an evolution, transformation, and synthesis of preexisting ideas combined with the well established public and private internet of the time. Please add a reference to the history of the Arpanet, hyperlinks to BBS articles, and other related stuff from the period of time in the mid to late 1980s when the public internet was really at its inception. The bias, btw, is the bias that is so often taken in discussions of the invention of the internet: that the WWW was invented by the British, and that the WWW is somehow exclusive and bares no relationship in anyway to the Arpanet or public networks of the 1980s. (there is no mention in this article, that every conceivable underpinning of the WWW came from the preexisting inter-institutional and public networks that formed the primordial internet) (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, Global internet began with Eunet. Besides Lee and Pellow nationalities, a bunch of others were involved, especially Swiss, Worldwide web was introduced by a multinational team located in CERN dependencies. If you go too far Sumerian abacus, (Hindu–)Arabic numeral system, Latin alphabet and Sino-Sanskrit woodblock printing should come first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
IIRC, the British had an integrated data network as far back as the 1960s as it was the basis of the Linesman/Mediator air defence system. And much of the basis of networking was developed by Alec Reeves and Donald Davies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@User talk: "...well established public and private internet of the time"

What are you talking about? There was NO "well established" "public" internet at the time you refer to. Public internet - due to the WWW implementation, had truly established itself in the latter half of the 90's. As for the Internet (Networking), that had previously been used only within certain governmental and institutional establishments, for specific purposes and looked nothing like the "public" Internet / WWW of recent years. It WAS the British computer scientist - Tim Berners Lee - who invented (WWW / the Web browser)which actually allows the general public, like us, across the globe, to view billions of pages (via links)of an array of various information via a linked web of various protocols...Just as we are able to view this page as it is displayed here and now. What is the reason for your personal issue with this fact? He actually held this idea long before taking the next steps to have it implemented.

I removed "Speed Issues"[edit]

The section titled "Speed Issues" was irrelevant and removed. The issues stated applied more specifically to the Internet and included the unheard of phrase: World Wide Wait. Also, the section included speed guidelines from a random book. - ComradeSlice(talk) 01:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

World Wide Wait was a common pun in the early days of the WWW because retrieving web pages over modem indeed was awfully slow. It is even referenced. That you didn't know about it is not an argument for removal – it is also referenced. I reverted your edit. Nageh (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so you reverted my edit without mentioning my other points? How about how Internet speed issues have nothing to do with the World Wide Web? At least remove the portions of the sections that only apply to the Internet... A few points from a random book discussing Internet speed do not belong in this article. - ComradeSlice(talk) 01:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Because you deleted everything within the section. It is very worthy mentioning that the WWW has been given that pejorative naming in the beginning. Also, it is worthy pointing out that improvements came both from increased connection speeds and from browser enhancements, persistent connections, etc. I agree that other information in that section is not appropriate, and an entire section on "Speed issues" may be a bit too much as well, but insert the relevant information somewhere. Nageh (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

WWW was invented in CERN, Geneve, Switzerland... or in France – neutral third opinion needed![edit]

French people seem to enjoy the seeming fact that Berners-Lee's office, while part of the CERN complex near Geneve, is located just across the border on French soil. One anonymous editor (geolocating to French IP range 78.251.*.*) is constantly changing the text in the article, which states that the web was invented in Geneve, Switzerland, to that it was invented in France. I need a third person to either revert the last change and warn the IP with WP:3RR, or – if there'll be no feedback – I'll file a request for WP:3O or some other means for intervention. Thanks! Nageh (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

He changed it in the German Wikipedia, too, and we agreed to chose a formulation clearly stating the location of CERN (both Swiss and French territory, near Geneva) and clearly not stating the location of the invention. Well, the old text was wrong, CERN is not in Geneva, and it is located in France and Switzerland. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable compromise. I have adjusted the wording accordingly. Nageh (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the change. Actually, I don't really care, at the beginning I performed the change a bit because it is true, a bit for fun too! But actually, it is true that it hasn't really happened in Geneva... To write it happened in Geneva is quite approximative. Indeed the headquarter of the CERN is located in Geneva, I believe. And there are various sites, some of them are in France, others in Switzerland, and others on both France and Switzerland, nobody really cares, actually. The big deal will be to know where the Higgs boson will get discovered: in the French part of the accelerator — most of the LHC is located in France — or in the Swiss one ;-D Thanks for the change, anyway :-) (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
And when did he make connections to MIT (USA) ?? -- AstroU (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of 'Servers' as section[edit]

As this is the main article of the World Wide Web, would it not be useful to include servers as a section on the page, perhaps under function or a similar heading.

'Information Superhighway'?[edit]

The inclusion of the "Nickname: Information Superhighway" in the introduction seems un-necessary or perhaps inapropriate for the introduction as it refers to the Internet, and not the World Wide Web. Changed to "Internet, also known as the information superhighway" to remove some of the unnecessary text. further discussion needed? NotinREALITY 05:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsuitable source[edit]

Although might agree, there's no evidence available on "scholarS (even less from everywhere) generally agreeing that a turning point for the World Wide Web began with the introduction of the Mosaic web browser". In addition, perhaps the "worldwide" element is more compatible with MSIE browsing Verisign domains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

More on the 'world' word (looking for Japanese/XXXItalian role): did he ask about selling? Yeah, captchatalk, 'bloodyears' when blue eyed ancestors of mine were spanked by altaic races (recaptcha 'prouddeny', must agree, the IP goes attached)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


Per WP:ENGVAR I think that a good case can be made for this article being consistent in British English spelling. I recetly changed three cases of -ize spelling to -ise, having noticed an IP editor altering an -ise word to create one of those three. I think the main case for this is that Sir Tim B-L is a English computer scientist and the inventor of all this. He did all the initial work at CERN, a European organisation in Switzerland. I have added {{British English}} to this talk page so that we have a record of this should future IP or other inexperienced editors come along in the future. --Nigelj (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references[edit]

Regarding [2]. Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

we need proof of this "significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing" -- I do not see it. I note that Piotrus has spammed many articles with his notice--and before he was stopped earlier today he was using a bot of some sort to make major formatting changes to major articles On none of those articles had he been an active editor and he never saw any of the "significant bloat. The idea is a bad one because it makes it much harder for the user to follow the notes. Rjensen (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The World Wide Web is a system...[edit]

That word 'system' just grates on me a little in the opening line. I know it's linked to information system, but there's something about that word that does not capture the disorganised, anarchic and organic nature of the web. You can alter one thing and break a 'system', but you can't ever do that to the WWW.

  • The World Wide Web (abbreviated as WWW or W3, commonly known as the Web), is a collection of interlinked hypertext documents accessed via the Internet. (Sounds a bit dull - it's not like somebody's stamp collection)
  • The World Wide Web (abbreviated as WWW or W3, commonly known as the Web), is a vast resource of interlinked hypertext documents accessed via the Internet.[3] (I like the introduction of the word resource, but it's used in a different sense to web resource, which incidentally is insufficiently introduced as a concept here IMHO)
  • The World Wide Web (abbreviated as WWW or W3, commonly known as the Web), is a multitude of interlinked hypertext documents accessed via the Internet. (sounds a bit... biblical?)

I don't know. I can't find the word that makes it lie down and not jump up at me as I read it. --Nigelj (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's important to convey the significance of The WWW in the early '90s, and what distinguished it from other (and already more capable) hypertext systems of the day. The most important word in "The World Wide Web" is "The". There's only one of them. There can be only one of them. Anything that supports those protocols becomes part of that one 'system'. At the time there were any number of powerful hypertext systems already in use, but their weakness was that they didn't interconnnect. TB-L's WWW did connect from the very outset (and its technical and business architecture focussed on keeping it this way). Even though it began as the weaker system for its features, it was always the system with the best connectivity.
I see your point about not liking "system" as a word, but I do think we need to preserve this important sense of "systemhood" in our choice of wording. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, yours has to be the single best comment anywhere on Wikipedia. Yes, there is only "One Web" and you have found the best way to make it clear by saying the most important word is "The". Thank you for saying so! I've never heard it said so well before! Bravo. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

'the web' is not the internet[edit]

I'm calling for a major overhaul of this article starting from the first sentence. You all know what I'm talking about...the 'world wide web' is not 'the internet' and most of this article, and most of what's written about 'the web' in general, is actually just about the internet as a whole.

That puts the lie to the narrative this article weaves about the 'world wide web' being this thing that was 'invented' at CERN by Tim Behrners-Lee.

That's not what happened at all. First, start at what is known in the industry as the "Mother of all Demos"

From that article: "Douglas Engelbart's December 9, 1968 demonstration of experimental computer technologies that are now commonplace. The live demonstration featured the introduction of a system called NLS which included one of[1][2] the earliest computer mouses as well as of video conferencing, teleconferencing, hypertext, word processing, hypermedia, object addressing and dynamic file linking, revision control, and a collaborative real-time editor.[3][4]"

checkmate on the 'world wide web' narrative...

I trust wikipedia...hell I just linked to another wikipedia article to prove my point...but this is **ridiculous**

the 'world wide web' was not the first use of 'hypertext' and is not 'the internet'...I WANT THIS ARTICLE CHANGED TO REFLECT THAT TRUTH

I know many agree with me...that's why I just put it out this way...get to work — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

@ the top of the article is a very clear message - "Not to be confused with the Internet". I disagree that most of the article is about the latter rather than the former. I think the article adequately distinguishes between the two concepts.
You also state "the 'world wide web' was not the first use of 'hypertext'" - well, the article doesn't say that it was, so where's the problem? WaggersTALK 12:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I added a sentence saying that laypeople (i.e. the general public) use the two terms interchangeably, including the portmanteau "Interweb" that is gaining more use. The fact the WWW and Internet are not the same should be emphasized more, and I think what I added does this, though of course feel free to massage the wording a little. If I might remind 75 one of the tenets of Wikipedia is "Be Bold". If you can provide sources and so forth, nothing is stopping you or anyone else from revising this article. (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit as it is clearly original research. In other words, please provide sources to back up your statements. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add that the WWW shouldn't be confused with hypertext systems in general, and to mention that it wasn't the first hypertext technology by a long shot, and not the first on the Internet, either. Of course everybody can click on the word 'hypertext' in the first sentence, but not everybody will. Rp (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

--- Interesting that Berners-Lee was using a NeXT computer... from Apple, I think? And Apple, well before '89, had something they called, I think, HyperCard (on Macs). (Apologies if HyperCard is already adequately covered. I looked... but not very hard, I admit.) I didn't understand it at the time, but looking back, it had elements of what the article describes as the WWW. It only (I think) let you build multi "card" (page) documents on a single machine, but had "links", just like a WWW link, between cards, and places on cards. Tkbwik (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

HyperCard and NeXT aren't hard to find. Rp (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Notable information[edit]

This article seems to be bloated with a lot of insignificant facts. For example, there's an entire section on the pronunciation of WWW. How people in New Zealand choose to pronounce the acronym is insignificant... David Condrey (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done? Search the article for 'pronunciation' and you find nothing but a footnote/ref that doesn't work. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of geospatial coordinates for the article?[edit]

On May 6, 2012, User:The Anomebot2 @The Anome: placed the following geospatial code into this article {{coord|46|13|57|N|6|02|42|E|type:landmark_source:kolossus-frwiki|display=title}}. I'm not sure it actually adds anything to the article, since the WWW doesn't really exist at one location. It's possible the intention was to be tongue-in-cheek, but before removing the code I thought I'd start this discussion to see if I'm missing something.Timtempleton (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of feedback, I'm removing the code Timtempleton (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This was the location of CERN building 513, where Tim Berners-Lee had his office. (Full disclosure: we worked there together.) — JFG talk 21:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


The World Wide Web connects to the International Space Station, which is an off-world settlement. Therefore, technically the world wide web is now misnamed. Should this fact be added to the article or is it too pedantic ? (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I suppose one could argue that since the ISS is orbiting Earth it is still part of a looser definition of "the world". On that basis I would suggest we'd need to reference a discussion about the name among "experts" if such a reference exists. Certainly the way our own article defines "world" suggests it includes the whole of human civilisation - which would include the ISS. WaggersTALK 14:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing[edit]

An example of activism to protect an open WWW and the Internet.

HEADLINE: Inventor of World Wide Web warns of threat to internet

QUOTE: "London (AFP) - The British inventor of the World Wide Web warned on Saturday that the freedom of the internet is under threat by governments and corporations interested in controlling the web.

Tim Berners-Lee, a computer scientist who invented the web 25 years ago, called for a bill of rights that would guarantee the independence of the internet and ensure users' privacy.

"If a company can control your access to the internet, if they can control which websites they go to, then they have tremendous control over your life," Berners-Lee said at the London "Web We Want" festival on the future of the internet.

"If a Government can block you going to, for example, the opposition's political pages, then they can give you a blinkered view of reality to keep themselves in power." " -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

This is neither new nor news, nor does this text belong in this article, but the reference might be used in a paragraph on Net Neutrality; this article doesn't have one; the article on Tim Berners-Lee does. Rp (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think net neutrality is the point, rather government censorship. And I put it here in TALK because it I agree with you that it may not fit in the Article at this time. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Internet / World Wide Web[edit]

In the article, it says that '[in common speech], internet and world wide web are used almost interchangeably.' I don't think people have said 'world wide web' in common speech since the '90s, but I didn't want to just make a bad edit. (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the opposite opinion (that the two are mixed often). Most people don't know the difference. Here is a TV commentary today (from a Google search): [4] CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV) -- If you are younger than 30, you probably cannot remember a time when you didn't have internet access. The World Wide Web turned 25 years old this year and according to a recent survey, many people feel that the internet has been a plus for society and an especially good thing for individual users. The inventor of the WWW as we know it today was Sir Tim Berners-Lee and he changed the internet from a clunky, geeky system only tech-types could understand to what we know and love today." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC) PS: The speaker may know the difference, but not many in the viewing audience do.

Edit warring[edit]

I see that OMPIRE (talk · contribs), disregarding WP:BRD, is prepared to edit war, rather than discuss this edit. Perhaps they can explain here what was so misleading before? --Nigelj (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing runs on the Internet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OMPIRE (talkcontribs) 14:37, 20 October 2014‎
Maybe you need to talk to your ISP about that :-) Please explain what you mean. --Nigelj (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is a bunch of malarkey[edit]

Where is there a reference for definition of world wide web? It is so much more than hyper text linked documents. To say that Tim is the inventor is nonsense. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you be any more specific? What's wrong with it? What's missing? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you know the rules - show us the refs that tell us what else it is, and who else invented it, and we'll discuss the proposed text changes. --Nigelj (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Without a ref to a definition of the world wide web, this article is total garbage. The world wide web is not what this article implies it is. I suggest this article get deleted. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you ever actually read Berners-Lee's writings? As in his essays, books, etc. If you haven't read them, you have no idea what you're talking about. The definition at the top of the article is fully consistent with that of Berners-Lee and Cailliau, both at the beginning and as developed throughout the 1990s. And have you actually visited CERN? --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like it should be easy for you to come up with a reference then. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The references are right in there. Please be specific on what you think is wrong or incomplete, we can't read your mind. But let me try:
  • If your objection is that Berners-Lee wasn't the first to use hyperlinked documents nor the first to marry them with the internet, I agree that some rewording and some more references to prior technology such as Gopher and MIT Athena may be in order.
  • If your objection is that the web is much more than hyperlinked documents, and quickly took the role of a universal application interface platform, starting with the addition of forms, I agree that the article should probably be extended to cover that better. Rp (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
TBL invented the World Wide Web which runs on the Internet backbone, so without him you likely as not wouldn't be writing on here now to complain.
Just because some people don't understand the difference between the Internet and the WWW is no reason for trying to claim TBL didn't invent the WWW, it is plainly obvious to anyone that that's just what he did. And being a network standard the WWW is in no way dependant on the Internet for its use, it just happened that way, indeed the WWW could just as easily be re-written to use any other network protocol, and thus an alternative network. Thus the WWW is not dependant on the existence of the Internet.
The fact is that before TBL devised the WWW the usage of the Internet was restricted to a few institutions around the world, and without him and the WWW it likely as not still would be.
... and it is noticeable that here on Wikipedia whenever a British-related subject is involved there is always someone trying to dispute or negate any article, a factor that is absent from talk pages on articles about just about every other country or nationality here on Wiikpedia. If one were being unkind one could be forgiven for thinking that some people from other nations have inferiority complexes about such things.
...and in addition, if some of the readers on here are under the misapprehension that the development of the computer was confined to their own particular country then I suggest they try reading some of the articles below:
... plus a load more I cannot be bothered linking.
... and I nearly forgot about Colossus.
... "Those who need to know, DO know."— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Death Link[edit]

Hello please change the link under references number 26. (dead link) to . thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielejoni (talkcontribs) 20:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your suggestion. The link you suggested would not be appropriate as a reference, because it is a rogue copy of the archived content on a commercial website; I have updated the link to the actual archived version of the original URL instead. --bonadea contributions talk 22:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternative image[edit]

A more complete image of the first webserver:

NeXTcube first webserver.JPG

©Geni (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

relation of WWW and DNS[edit]

A recent change to longstanding wording, "partially built on the Domain Name System", to "built on top of the Domain Name System" is confusing. I can operate without the DNS so it's not built on top of it, but only partially. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The WWW is built atop DNS like the Empire State Building is built atop the Earth's core. There is no relation worth mentioning.
To say "partially built on" is to give an excessive implication that use of DNS is optional. It is (names can be resolved locally by hostfiles, or by using explicit IPs) but this would be peculiar and not deserving of specific mention. You might as well state, "The Web uses port 80, or sometimes port 8080". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the opening sentence as it now stands, apparently starting with this edit. Thevideodrome (talk · contribs) said, "added a bit about the Domain Name System." We have stuff about DNS in the Function section, as well as under WWW prefix. Sure we summarise the main points of the article in the lede section, but I don't think that DNS is so central to the web that it needs to appear in sucha summary, much less as the whole second half of the all-important opening sentence.
Per wp:lede, we don't need citations in the lede section for well-cited and non-controversial material that already appears in the body of the article, so why do we have a citation for this opening sentence? Worse still, we cite it to the whole website! The front page of this website (where that link lands) is a regularly updated news page that has different content on it day by day, so this citation is worse than useless. I have put a new subsection heading below, because I'd like to discuss improving the opening sentence in more general terms. --Nigelj (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the reference to DNS is described as 'longstanding wording' at the top of this section. I don't think that's quite true, unless you count 'since yesterday' as longstanding. I've traced the opening sentence back as far as June 2012 (1,000 edits back) and I'm still seeing 'a system of interlinked hypertext documents accessed via the Internet.' with no mention of DNS. --Nigelj (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence improvement[edit]

Looking around the site, we find here that the W3C themselves use our own definition of internet (from the opening sentence of that article), but they don't use our definition for the WWW from this article. They say it "is an information space in which the items of interest, referred to as resources, are identified by global identifiers called Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)." That is in three parts: (1) 'information space', which we mimic with 'information system', (2) 'resources', which we call 'hypertext documents', and (3) 'URIs', which is where we take a different tack, talking about 'interlinked hypertext'. I'm happy with our difference at (3), as from the W3C definition there would be no reason why it is called a 'web', rather than being a simple list of documents each with a unique URI. Looking at their own cited longer document,[5] I think it's clear that they want to get on and introduce the three main technical pillars - URIs, HTTP, and HTML - and so introducing one of them right up front works well.

For my part, I'd like to agree with them in item (1) and use the phrase 'information space', because 'information system' sounds to me like a piece of software that would run on one machine, or maybe a cluster, or even a whole datacentre, but the web is much much bigger and more diverse than this. I think 'space' is more appropriate than 'system'. Regarding (2), I'm not so sure. Web resource is the correct term, but it is a technical term, that is a slightly unusual usage of a more common word. To most people, a resource is raw material or a source of raw materials. If they work in HR, they may think of a resource as a person, or if they think like a senior manager they may think of a department or a building or a piece of equipment or plant. For it to refer to a document or image takes another leap of knowledge. We cover the term well in the body of the article (23 mentions), but I don't think we need to have it dominate the opening sentence, per the principle of least astonishment. For (3) I prefer our approach, as I described above.

I propose the following for the opening sentence:

The World Wide Web (www, W3) is an information space where documents and other web resources are identified by URIs, interlinked by hypertext links, and can be accessed via the Internet.

--Nigelj (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The term information space is a rather nebulous term that doesn't mean anything specific. The WP article for the term is equally nebulous. There is no implication in the term information system that limits it in scope. Kbrose (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:V, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Do you have a citation, better than the W3C, that the web is an 'information system'? I think the W3C's use of the more nebulous term is exactly correct in that the web as a whole is a rather nebulous thing. As I said above, "'information system' sounds to me like a piece of software that would run on one machine, or maybe a cluster, or even a whole datacentre". But ultimately it doesn't matter what you and I think, it's what the preponderance of reliable sources say that matters, and nothing else. Please provide a source. --Nigelj (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
In the absence of any citation supporting information system in the opening definition, I'm going to go with information space per W3C. --Nigelj (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

visualizations of the world wide web[edit]

user:kbrose reverted my contribution of a graphic depicting a visualization of the largest publically available world wide web crawl c.f.: I am confused because the article Internet also has a visualization and in my oppinion there is inherent encyclopedic value to preserve such a graphic which was contributed to the free knowledge base by a researcher. I would like to hear what others have to say. The graphic in question can be found on: File:Visualization_of_the_world_wide_web_common_crawl_2012.png --Renepick (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The graphic frankly shows very little if anything useful. It's even hard to see just what it is that is there. How does this add value to the article? Just what does it actually show and what is the meaning of it? The fact that the Internet article has another one of these useless gimmicks, is not an argument for inclusion. Kbrose (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
why don't you remove this useless gimmick from the other article then? Since we are two authors of opposite opinion I would love to hear what others have to say? These kind of visualizations are being created over the time in the research community and give people an impression of the topology of the web graph (though visualizing such a large graph can obviously only be an approximation) it is the same as for contries in these articles you also show a map or for the earth you also have a picture. Why not having one for the world wide web? --Renepick (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
You are free to write an article about such graphics, viz. this particular one, that provides the context needed for this graph to be useful. The fact that someone did the research to create it, by itself, doesn't make a good case to show it out of context, where its meaning is lost. The fact that many such factoids exist on WP, does not justify the case. Kbrose (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
A world map is accurate, it displays actual, actionable information. This picture does not: if it displays any information at all, it isn't clear to the reader what that information is. Using the term "approximation" to describe it seems overly generous. Sure, we can aggregate the WWW into a graph of a few nodes and links, but the nodes don't appear to stand for anything specific, they may just as well be the arbitrary results of the clustering method chosen, which isn't clear either: the description says it's "the Louvain method" applied to "Web Data Commons - Hyperlink Graph 2012", so I'll need to study clustering methods and web data sets before I can understand the information content of this image. Note that the picture displaying part of the Wikipedia link graph doesn't have this problem - it is immediately clear what is being visualized there, at least to me. Rp (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Social Impact of the WWW[edit]

I think we need to start a new section covering the social impact of the web and the long-term implications of the technology.Twobellst@lk 10:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)