Talk:History of the World Wide Web

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for History of the World Wide Web: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    		History of the World Wide Web was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

    Reviewed version: April 3, 2006
    History of the World Wide Web was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on March 26, 2006.

    For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
    History of the World Wide Web is related to the WikiProject Early Web History. This Project is an attempt to create and link together articles about the early history of the World Wide Web.

    You can discuss the Project at its talk page, or see its main project page here.


    Contents

    [edit] Scope

    I want to thank Wackymacs for an excellent start here, but I'm a bit concerned about the scope... we can pull in a lot of info on the evolution of browsers, search engines, etc... but that's primarily about technology. I have an interest in documenting the growth in sites and culture, from high-energy physicists to college kids and comp-sci students to everyone. It's quite possible that this article should split out into separate histories for History of World Wide Web technology and History of World Wide Web culture. Just a thought, open to suggestions... KWH 06:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    I would agree that in an article like this one, we definitely want to have a lot on the culture of the Web. I also think it's important at the beginning of the article to make clear the point that when the Web was starting out, it was only one of a number of competing Internet interfaces. Until months after Mosaic was introduced, the WWW was just one of several interesting new technologies which were changing the earlier text-based Internet. I've started doing some work to clarify this. Just stating "The WWW is not the Internet." will not convey this to somebody who started using the Internet after the year 1995 or so, or to anyone else who never used Gopher,WAIS, Archie, or even FTP. CGMullin 20:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Clarification on hypertext

    I've just edited the second paragraph of the 1992—2000: Growth of the WWW section, since it seemed worthwhile clarifying that the Gopher protocol is, in fact, hypertext. It's just not the sort of hypertext we are used to these days. A single Gopher menu item might refer to anything from a few words to a huge collection of documents, as with the hypertext links we are used to. Furthermore, that menu item, or link, might look entirely different in two different Gophers, or in the *same Gopher* at two different times, or even in two places in the same Gopher at the same time. To me, it's that latter point which makes it clear that a Gopher menu item is in fact an early example of hypertext. CGMullin 20:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] After 1995? Brief history of important web sites or companies which played major role in developing the WWW?

    I would like to see information on how the WWW developed after 1995, and the dot-com bubble, and how it became what is it today, and the role it has played in the world as it developed.

    There should also be a brief history on important websites or companies which played an important role in the development of the WWW, such as MSN, Yahoo!, Google, Lycos, Excite, AOL and others.

    --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] COTW rollover

    When it comes time for the COTW rollover, the COTWnow edit was my March 27 edit. Sorry, it seems that I forgot to put the edit summary on the page. PDXblazers 16:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Web 2.0

    Something about the current web 2.0 fad would go well in the last section, could someone add something about it? Htaccess 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Some good points and some bad points

    This article is a broad and factually accurate article and meets four of the first six requirements for a good article. However, there are still some things that need fixing. The grammar and spelling are excellent but the introduction could do with being a bit longer and does not need the sentence "Wikipedia's "History of the internet" article tells that story". Instead just place the link in the see also section at the bottom. The paragraph structure is poor because there are no less than sixteen one-and-two sentence paragraphs. If possible the entire text should be condensed to give larger 4-5 sentence paragraphs.

    There are also too many sections and subsections - five sections and two little subsections to be precise excluding the introduction, see also, references and external links. Consider removing the two subsections from the 1992-1995 section and also consider merging the three sections covering 1996-present day. Avoid using the article title in section headings whenever possible, e.g. a section titled "1992-1995: Development'" is better because it is pretty obvious that it is going to be about the development of the WWW between 1992-1995.

    Now for the painful bit, just one citation and just two reference texts alluded to. For an article of this length there should be at least five or six inline citations and a couple more reference texts or a couple more external links. Fix all these and you have a strong FA candidate. Green Giant 23:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Failed GA

    Inadequate references. Good otherwise. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

    I don't have time right now, but tommorrow, I can add that addresses the first cite needed tag. If somebody sees this before I get to it, the statement is reiterated (I don't know where it originally came from) is on Tim Berners-Lee's (sp?) faq on his web-page. Thus Spaketh Dave? (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] No mention of wikis?

    History of the World Wide Web#2002-Present: The Web becomes ubiquitous mentions social networking websites, but says nothing about wikis. Given that wikis are undergoing something like an explosion in number, editorial participation, and browsing popularity, does anyone else think it would be appropriate to mention wikis in this section?

    In particular, it might be good to mention how wikis are, to some extent, a reaction against the steadily increasing complexity of Web development tools and protocols. In the early days of the Web, the relative simplicity of HTML, and the ease of learning from existing Web pages with View | Page Source in a browser, allowed lots of people to make straightforwardly useful Web pages quickly. But then Web site development became more complex and specialized. The View | Page Source function on most large Web sites today has become about as understandable to non-experts as a core dump. Wikis are like a way to "give the Web back" to non-specialists, by putting Web page development once again in reach of people who can master a simple markup language. It will be interesting to see if wikis repeat the evolution toward complexity, and some future technology springs up to provide (temporary) simplicity again. --Teratornis 07:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Interview with Robert Cailliau

    Hi everyone,

    we are preparing an interview at Wikinews with Robert Cailliau, all insightful questions are most welcome here: Wikinews:Story preparation/Interview with Robert Cailliau.

    --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Straying From The Subject?

    I removed the paragraph about the introduction of tcp/ip from the "1980-1991: Development of the World Wide Web" section. The paragraph was out of context - many developments led to the establishment of the World Wide Web, including ARPANET in the late 1960s, but both that and the tcp/ip topic are well covered elsewhere on Wiki. The sudden diversion to the subject in the section on Tim Berners-Lee and his work in the 1980s and early 1990s was out of place and, I found, very distracting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorgan65 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

    I have removed an inaccurate statement from the introduction - which claimed that the World Wide Web was implemented in the 1940s.

    (Dorgan65 (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Google mainpage.png

    Image:Google mainpage.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

    BetacommandBot (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)