Talk:Internet/Archive 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Edit request on 11 January 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Paragraph 3, last sentence should read "[...]—more than a third of the world's human population—[...]" Reasoning: The source quoted here (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm) states that at the time (July 2012) the global Internet user base makes up 34.3% of the world population. As this is more than 1/3 (33%) the existing half-sentence reading "—nearly a third of the world's human population—" should be replaced. 134.115.65.192 (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Done albeit with a slight word change - the sentence already says "more than 2.4 billion people..." so I changed the proposed wording to "over" instead. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 18:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Introduction
"(or internet)" - the article is clearly about a specific internet, and thus is a proper noun, and so should have a capital "I", my grasp of English grammar isn't great, but this seems as clear cut a case as you'd get, being both a proper noun and a proper name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.158.52 (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Have a look at the Terminology section and Capitalization of "Internet". -—Kvng 14:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- In the "Social impact" section, please add an "Economics" sub-section as follows:
While much has been written of the economic advantages of internet-enabled commerce, there is also evidence that some aspects of the internet such as maps and location-aware services may serve to reinforce economic inequality and the digital divide.[1] Even electronic commerce may be responsible for consolidation and the decline of mom-and-pop, brick and mortar businesses resulting in increases in income inequality.
Partly done: I omitted the "Even" that begins the final sentence, since it didn't make sense to me. (Let me know if I'm reading it wrong.) Also tagged that final sentence because it is unsourced. Rivertorch (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Cool! Thank you. That's better without "even". Here's the ref for that second sentence: [2] sorry I forgot that. Neo Poz (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we can use that to support the wording as written. It's very interesting, and the author clearly knows what he's talking about, but it's basically an editorial, not an article. Rivertorch (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is it okay to use that for the gist/overview along with the hard numbers he links to, e.g. and (that second one also is more prose than stats, but it links to stats too)? Neo Poz (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Umm . . . I'm not sure. In general terms, the main thing is to avoid stating something as fact that's sourced to an opinion piece. You can get around that by attributing it (i.e., "So-and-so writes in Such-and-such that . . ."), although you need to be careful, if paraphrasing, not to put words in the somebody's mouth. A brief direct quote is sometimes the best way to avoid that. An additional concern is avoiding giving undue weight to a particular point of view. I doubt that that's a big concern here, but I'll bet you can find other sources (e.g., newspaper articles) that cover the same topic neutrally enough. Your account should be autoconfirmed in a couple days, so I'll leave it up to you! Rivertorch (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is it okay to use that for the gist/overview along with the hard numbers he links to, e.g. and (that second one also is more prose than stats, but it links to stats too)? Neo Poz (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we can use that to support the wording as written. It's very interesting, and the author clearly knows what he's talking about, but it's basically an editorial, not an article. Rivertorch (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Cool! Thank you. That's better without "even". Here's the ref for that second sentence: [2] sorry I forgot that. Neo Poz (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
See also
- Internaut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.182.117 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2013 (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)
I, surely, support an updated growth rate of the Internet. The latest number isn't that much in public presence. Please, feel free to add years to, all the way up to today, 2013. Can we have an estimated number too, by a bit of ISP polling, USA, China, Nigeria, the usual European, so on, please? I demand so much... ;-) 82.164.203.85 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Against the Hype - The Impossible Notion of Criminal Internet
If we exclude the intranet-type servers, then we must conclude that all servers are public, and as they are public, they are in fact raidable, so to speak, at any point in time by police forces and other people who are undertaking citizens' duties, given the seriousness of offense... Agree? 82.164.203.85 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Horriblly misleading diagram
The 16 April 2010 version of this diagram implies several things that range from dubious to untrue in the majority of cases including.
- tier 1 networks are "the internet"
- end users only buy from tier 3 providers
- networks only buy transit from the tier immediately above them
- networks only peer with other networks of the same tier
I understand diagrams have to simplify reality sometimes in order to make stuff fit but I feel this diagram misleads more than it helps. What do others think? -- Plugwash (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Done or
Partly done. I agree and made some changes to the diagram to hopefully address at least some of the above comments. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)