Talk:Internet generation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internet generation article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 4, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Are there any references for this neologism? --Madchester 07:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Track listing for the MC Lars CD that coined the term [1]. I've yet to see it used online, though I've seen the term used in several magazines, but obviously can't provide a link to them sorry. --80.4.224.6 02:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
At any rate, it's bordering on original research and has a strong POV to it. Alphax τεχ 01:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] HOLD ON!

I've got an idea- how about we change the internet generation to start at 1996 and keep it going until around 2008, and we can group everyone from 1986-1995 in 'The Echo Boom' generation, as children of the baby boomers, since there was another baby boom in that time. Echo boomers tend to be more closely associated with the Baby Boomers than the Gen Xers anyway, and I think this is a signifigant point, and will very possibly end most of the quarrell over this touchy subject. How about it? Dan

OR, that's why. we dont get to define the term ourself, we are stuck with what other people use. DGG (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.34.162.74 (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] KEEP IN MIND!

This article refers to the AMERICAN fraction of the people who were born at this time- note it is in the catogery: American Generations.

[edit] Mark for Deletion

Article is heavily flawed, and not based on any proven fact. Also mis-states by saying this generation saw the birth and rise of the internet - the internet was born FAR before this generation - it's rise may have happened during this time, but birth, no way.

  • Delete I'm for the deletion of this article. It has a bunch or pointless information and not enough facts to back up it's statements (the "MySpace generation"?). --AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This page is total rubbish. Completely unfactual, coining terms denoted by commercial operations and TV (Myspace generation? Ipod Generation? "Loli-boomer"?!). As already stated, everything in this article is already covered.--Mincetro 03:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is subjective, as someone who was born in 1988 could have begun using the internet at the age of 6, whereas someone born in 1990 could not use the internet until the age of 13, persay. Everything in this article is already covered by the term Generation Y, and therefore should be deleted. --User:Anonymous 19:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Should this article go into the AfD's while we vote on it? I don't have much experience with deleting articles, so I just wanted to confirm that. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment See this page's deletion page and continue to discuss there. Keep...except for MyPod I personally DO find this article interesting and informative. But I to agree with alexjohnc3, I've never heard my generation refered to as MyPod, nor have I heard Loli-gen. I HAVE heard of millenials, internet generation, generation D, and most often generation M and Y. As part of this generation, I do believe that this should be kept sans some material. I think that each of these names needs to be supported by something. At least loli-gen had a reference!! ForestAngel 04:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add more infomation

More should be added to this article. I'm part of the igeneration myself and use Wiki continuously. It would be great to see some additions. Thank you.


Yes, I agree. Having all the various names for the Internet or iGeneration in one place makes this article better than it was before. I think we should keep it and try to add some additions and improvements rather than delete it.

[edit] In need of a major overhaul.

This article is simplistic and a mess. It is folly to classify taste in music for this generation in a Rap/Emo dichotomy. More emphasis should be put on differences from Gen Yers and the technology that has done so much to define iGen. We deserve far better.

I think it's been cleaned up. The neutrality also no longer seems applicable.


Yeah, the article is basically just an extended definition and footnote to Generation Y, but as the iGeneration matures, it'll become more relevant as a term. It just seems like terms bandied around by the media trying to catch up with what's going on. Apple has a new thing coming out called, not supririsingly, 'iGeneration.'

[edit] Load of Crap!

Agreed. This article, to put nicely, is a load of crap. The Generation Y and iGeneration articles are telling different stories, yet they basically cover the same article at the moment! This article is also home to heavy stereotyping and out of date information. For instance, the Pop-Rap & R&B scene has lost a lot of popularity since the Early 2000s. The Definition of Emo is also dated to when the fashion also first appeared, and this article seems maybe in a POV of about 2002 or 2003. In need of a major overhaul as it is dated and again to be honest, a load of crap. Boochan 11:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, what about this crap about MySpace generation. This is way too centric and partisan to a single webspace. Plus it might be gone in a few years anways. Needs a major rewriting.
I support this, MySpace and all the rest are just hype words. whats next? Ajax Generation? It doesnt even make sense to call MySpace users a Generation, MySpace is only up for a few years, a whole Generation is something that takes much longer then that.
As the title say this is a load. It sounds like a kid wrote this from his narrow minded point of view. (Other person: no, a kid wouldn't even write something like this- plus I doubt he would be insulting himself.) Granted my point of view isn't any better but I do know that this is not accurate one bit. The internet generation did start some time in the 80's and that was the time when hackers were dominant (before kiddie scripting came about). If you want to do an article about myspace, itunes, and all the future money squeez ideas do that in the kiddie scripting generation but as far as the "real" internet generation is concerned there were no ipods, myspace, etc. There were BBS, Hacking, Dial-Up, 1337, Unix, Dos, Window9x, Open Source, and more but, it's not like this new gen with all their fancy expensive gadget's and their ignorance on the internet I don't know what generation that is but it's not the internet generation! --Dvelez1985 00:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me but this paragraph stinks and I have removed it: "The name "iGeneration" is based on the popular iPod music device, as the majority of iPod owners are members of this generation[10]. The term foregrounds the paradoxical ways in which this generation's idiosyncratic subjectivity and individualism ("I") develop within global capitalism and its technological mediation in a way that both constrains and expands the possibilities for identity-formation, akin to how Michel Foucault points to the relationship between sexuality and discourse in the nineteenth century's generative effects of power." A rather wordy and unwieldy sentence that veers into Original Research, citing that a barely established term is supposedly based around the name of a consumer product? The lowercase 'i' doesnt stand for iPod or individualism or any of that crap, as anyone would notice upon reading this article, it stands for 'internet'. Reads like a factually incorrect amateur-intellectual essay. 3dom 09:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to disagree with you there. the lowercase 'i' is almost certainly a reference to the iPod and other Apple products. 210.49.114.110 12:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)M
Agree as well. There were a lot of people using Walkmen back in the 80's & 90's, no one calls them WalkGeneration. Terms "iGeneration" and "MySpace Generation" are truly a load of crap and should be removed.
Well I agree that these terms are not that notable. Why someone hasn't just taken some initiative and deleted it yet is beyond me, so bye-bye Myspace generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonzi (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 anybody?

As a member of iGeneration, I thought it ought to be said that 9/11 is probably going to wind up being the defining event of our lives. While I know a lot of people will disagree, 9/11 changed everything. It also might be appropriate to mention the effects of such polorizing elections/political culture in the United States right now, in addition to talking about other current events. I know it's hard to guage where this generation is politically, but it would be good to at least mention some life-changing events.

I'm also a member of the iGeneration and i got admit, 9/11 kind of changed everything. It happened while we were still kids (or teens i guess) 9/11 should diffently be put in there.

Well since the terms generation Y and iGeneration apply to those born *outside* the US as well as those inside the US the majority of generation yer's would not experience the political ramifications of 9/11 in any substantial way that would act as the defining feature of the generation. I would hardly call the events that occurred 'lifechanging' to the whole generation, sure it happened but did it directly affect those outside the US as a 'lifechanging' incident. I'm sure since trends of apathy amongst this generation and becoming less 'ideological' and more materialistic and issue orientated society September 11 has little ramifications. The effects of 9/11 will also be offset by the proclamations (within this article) of this generation being more detached and less interested in allegiances to their people and place. This is not my opinion, it's fact, it's on wiki. Nam was defining, Cold war was defining, WW2 was defining not 9/11 unless nothing happens of relative importance in the next 10 years.


The Internet will have a more profound shaping influence on world culture than 9//1, which only 'woke up' Americans to a reality of terrorism that millions of people live with every day in other parts of the world. Still, 9/11 may be the defining feature of the next generation, after the Internet generation.

This article lists the years of the generation as starting in 1994. These people would ahve been 8 or so when 9/11 happened. I doubt it affected them that much. I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who was 10 then, so I'm not that far away from it. ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong 17:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) ___________ In my opinion, what will eventually define the generation line between the internet generation and the next one is if someone was old enough to remember pre-9/11 days. Growing up in a nation where you have seemingly little worries about the outside world in reguards to foreign policy, terrorism and the like is severly different from growing up in a world where fear of attack is thrown about as a daily reminder of the past. That, in addition to the huge effects of the internet that first effected this generation, growing up with it as relatively commonplace also changes much, and serves as a dividing line between this generation and past ones (growing up with the internet mostly in place and booming).

[edit] Pic favor??

What is with this article. It skims through a load of issues that are part of the so called igeneration. Why is it even here?????

heee...

oh, i don't know. (ThirdPlateauDreamer 06:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC))


Isn't it the job of wikipedians to add to it?

[edit] What's Next?

What, so the IGen ends in 1999 - what do we call the next lot, anybody????

I'm sure they'll come up with some swanky name, but these things are always done in hindsight, no?

[edit] Rap and Emo ARE popular as of the mid-2000s

While I, a not-so-proud Gen Yer dislikes rap and emo, they are popular now in the mid-2000s and aside from indie stuff (which doesn't count for much IMO) they define Gen Y the way Grunge, Hair Metal and New Wave define Gen X.

Rap LOSING popularity since the early 2000s? R U kidding me? 2002/2003 is when it hit its current popularity; it was in somewhat of a slump between 1997 and 2001/02 because of Teen Pop. Today rap beats the early 90s in popularity.

2003-2005 are probably the best years rap has seen popularity-wise; the same can't be said for quality though. That's 1987-1993 :)


That's great. If you can cite a source, you can put it into the article.--205.133.240.254 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 2003-05 seems about right. We seem to be pushing forward to the past now, with rock/metal taking the stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.228 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust and WWII references

The Holocaust/WW2 references in this article are either completely out of place or just plain wrong and need to be rewritten and shortened. I'm not insinuating that a POV dispute over the fact that the Holocaust and WW2 were traumatic, terrible events that the generation described in the article will only experience through films, but the mention of Schindler's List et al is entirely unnecessary, as it's obvious the real Holocaust could not have been a formative experience for them, nor could any horrible part of history, I'm not sure why we have to single out certain things. For that matter, this also brings up a fallacy of the article, which is to assume that the lack of personal acquaintance with Holocaust survivors or WW2 veterans is hugely significant to a generation's outlook and furthermore that it's unique to the so-called iGeneration. Honestly, it's not as if such events had great significance for the previous two or three generations (Y, X, and baby boomers) either, although they may have been born very close to them and known people for their entire life who had participated or were victimized. That was the whole idea of the baby boomer/1960s culture-- they weren't defined by such things. The baby boomers born 55 or 60 years ago did not experience WW2 or the Holocaust either except through later stories told by others, or through media, and I suspect most people involved in these events did not talk about them much with their young kids. I'm not sure what the big difference is with regard to the Holocaust/WW2 between someone born in 1950 and someone born in 2000. Any way either of them experiences the things will be indirect. I was born way before this iGeneration (early '80s), and I never personally knew a Holocaust survivor, I learned from Schindler's List and from reading as well. [Yes, but woldn;t it possible for you to talk to one? vs. those being born now. Is that a significant difference or not? Maybe, maybe not.]

These people are missing the entire 20th century. Let's not reduce it to specific wars or issues.

I agree, that whole section seemed to be unnecessary and distort the flow of the text. Anyway, I was born in 1980, and also haven't known any holocaust survivor myself, although I met one for a history class in school, once. It was interesting, but the former commentors statement about its effect on world outlook seems justified. 81.232.72.148 01:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the world outlook: is that a defining feature of a generation? Do people born in the 1990s' see the world in a different way that those who gew up in the 1920s? It would be hard to argue there's no difference... Thus, let's focus on what the word 'generation' even means: that is what is up for debate.

[edit] List of famous people

i removed the list of famous people, as it is pointless and too celeb-centric -Fabhcún 23:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Generation V notice

I just categorized Generation V. I believe that article is synonymous with this or Generation Y. I am however not American and have very little knowledge about this subject so I leave it to you people to determine. Regards, Gardar Rurak 07:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I support merging into Gen Y

I definitely support redirecting this article to Generation Y. iGeneration is definitely not the more common (see GoogleFight). [[Yes, but igeneration is an emerging terms, and the numerical difference is actually not that much, especially considering GEn y has been around longer; and isn't the point to make a distinction from Gen Y?] It is also a copy from the likes of iTunes, iPod, etc., which isn't very appropriate for a term that's supposed to be used by researchers, demographers, etc. (In this regard it's a lot like the term myspace generation.) The fact that it's a neologism from a mass-market product very particular to its time means that it is likely to be short-lived, and will date terribly. In comparison, Generation Y follows the very well-established term Generation X, suggesting it is likely to be more used by those in the field, and for a much longer time.

"Generation X" another media buzz word that came into vogue with Coupland's novel of the same name. The people of that generation didn't say 'yes, that's us' any more than Generation Y. I think a term that has something to do with the Internet is better than some abritrary letter. The term is also there to put a marker in for what comes after Generation Y. One basic reasoning behind 'generations' in the first place is the idea of a shared cultural historical epoch that shapes identity in a way that is somehow generalizable: major historical events, changes in technology, etc. I guess we have to ask outselves if there's any use to the term 'generation' at all. if there is, does it make sense to start mapping out what follows Generation Y, or will it just be Y from here on in: turtles all the way down... In four or five years, it may be 'obvious' that there is an emerging generation that cannot simply be lumped together with Y. The value of Wikipedia is that the article is endlessly revisable as new understandings of this 'thing' that may or may not be a 'generation' come into focus. It makes sense to lump iGeneration, myspace generation, etc. together because they're essentially all provisional names for the same category of generation: something on the horizon after Y, which doesn't have much thinking behind it other than 'what comes after X.'

This article also suffers a lot because it just doesn't receive the attention of the Generation Y article.

El T 12:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree in the merger, but i also believe the generation is defined over too larger range to be it genuinely considered a generation where members experienced the same trends. I mean come on, those born in the first year would not have know or used the internet to much later on in life, the 2000 gen of yer's have led i life not knowing a world without internet first hand. I reckon the generation could also habe another neologism, e-generation or @generation but there are nth amount of descriptors we can use to identify the generation, thus the merging of this article is justified as this clearly does not stand alone as a unique subset of the y generation universally recognized, currently there are no real sub divisions in the period of births between 1975-2001 but there should be. From my perspective the fall of communism and the profiliration of ICT resources really defined the generation between 1976-1996 i do not know why it has been extended to 2001 maybe for american convience that 9/11 provided the major defining event not the fall of the berlin wall and the USSR. Cold War vs. Effects of Terrorism only time will tell, but i must admit that anti-communist frontiers are a feature of xer's (vietnam).

[edit] Cleanup notice

Although there was no conclusion to delete the article, it cannot remain the way it currently is. Most times sources are either unstated or not notable. For example, the infamous loli-boom/boomer comes up with few results on a Google query, of which most are unrelated or created by the originator of the term. I therefore marked the article for cleanup. Don Cuan 19:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and took out: references to the "Myspace" generation, iPod generation, and the paragraph about privacy.Anthonzi (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Comes Up With These Idiotic Year-spans?

Seriously...1985-1999? What idiot decided that? Also, this article assumes that most of us born in this timeframe have no recollection of life without the Internet? Hell, I remember life without Microsoft Windows and I was born in 1987. The Internet didn't become a full-fledged part of mainstream culture (i.e. everyone didn't have Internet access and used it heavily) until the mid-late 1990s (1994 at the very earliest). Meaning that anyone born in the 1980s had to have some recollection of life without the Internet, unless they came from wealthy backgrounds.131.156.238.75 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this generation should be from 1988 - 1999, and lump the 1985 - 1987 with the Boomerang.

What was the discussion that led to this year-span? This article is very 2000-centric, with the majority of the internet population boom joining in the last 6 years, not to mention numerous references to commercial products that gained popularity this decade. 1999 seems like a ludicrous choice to draw the line. 3dom 09:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


I was born in 1986. I didn't use a computer until 8th grade.--205.133.240.254 22:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ditto

Ditto here- I was born in 1990 and didn't have the internet until 2002. I remember when no one had even heard of the internet. And who says just because I was born in 1990 that I accept it as part of life? I hate the internet- I think it's screwed up the world more than anything ever before- look at terrorism, child molestors, the increased crime rates, and our increasing isolation from each other. You are correct, it seems like the generation should be something more like 1994-2006 or something, because most people didn't have the internet until the year 2000. What's next, the iPod generation? Come on!

Anyway, I think the year span should go along with the year of the public release of the internet, if this article is even going to stay here, - 1992. Why not group 1985-1991 with the Boomerang and 1992-2004 with the Internet? Makes more sense to me. But this article should probably just be grouped in with Generation Y.

    • If you "hate the internet" then why the heck are you on it? Besides, no one forces you to look at any of the stuff on the internet, you find it all yourself. If you don't like it, don't use it. Jackoff.** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You were born in 1990, and you remember when no one had heard of the internet. Stupidtroll is stupid. 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.228 (talk)

[edit] Internet generation?

Internet? Blah! That's funny! Most of my classmates say: "Technology is not my cup of tea." And what's Myspace?


Yes, but they've at least heard that The Internet exists... Unlike your friend, those born in 1940 couldn't have heard of the Internet because it didn't exist yet.

I wanted to add to the page this sentence: The iGeneration could become/could be seen as the name of the current style of late 90's early 2000. In which the "I", besides internet, can also be seen as the 'improved' individuality of products. Think about covers for telephones and iPod's and stylable sneakers. The machinal individuality of faded jeans is another example. This reflects the social change to people being more on there own (among others because of the internet but also other "i" products). (source for demographic proove needed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.139.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is incredibly insulting

"Thus, the Internet Generation has no recourse to a memory of (or nostalgia for) a pre-Internet history, a factor which greatly differentiates them from older generations, even Generation Y, who had to learn to adapt to new technologies. The iGeneration simply takes the Internet for granted as natural, readily accepting the utility of services such as internet forums, Wikipedia, search engines, MySpace, and imageboards as part of its global cultural ecosystem."

PLEASE. I was born in 1993. I do not consider this at all.

Response: Oh, so you remember a world before the Internet? So...you're writing on Wikipedia, but the Internet has no relevance for you? People of the "TV generation" don't have to ever have watched TV. The point is that they don't (can't) remember TV as a 'new technology,' much like you didn't exist in the pre-Internet world.

Again... insulting. I don't know why I should take this stuff from 50-year olds who have way too much free time. What I am trying to do is get this perticular article cut out- along with the other generation articles if the members consider them sterotypical or insulting. Can a celeberity choose to not have an article? I thought so. It is the same thing here. Yes I do remember a world before the internet... I doubt the internet has become popular before the year 2000. (my first computer simply did command lines.) That is why none of us knew what the Y2K actually was before it actually happened. I nominate this article to be CUT OUT. just CUT THE CRAP PEOPLE.


Response: Actually, the Internet started taking off in the mid 1990s with the development of the World Wide Web. Thus, you were 2 when it took off. Its popularity or not isn't based simply on your particular experience and your family's computer-buying history. But seriously, don't all generations feel that the labels don't apply to them. :) Why are you so mad about it? Aren't all descriptions of generations stereotypical? Do Are all gen Xers slackers? Are all Baby Boomers former hippies who sold out and became yuppies? Does that make these generalizations wrong? Should be do away with all generation labels? When it comes down to it, isn't this whole debate rather silly? Isn't the whole idea to IMPROVE articles by writing them communally, not simply cut them out when someone gets offended?


Actually, I think we should cut out the generation idea alltogether. Well it is OK to look at generations before 1900 because they are usually all dead. Mabye we can even cut at 1920. But I personally think that sterotyping generations is wrong, period. You call the G.I. generation the generation that fought WWII. And ALL of them DID fight WWII (all-since the draft, right?) But I don't think they want to remember times on the battlefield while browseing the internet. Also, the MTV generation. Though MTV has only become popular reccently, you name 1974-1985 as the MTV generation- though MTV wasn't launched until it was half over. (1981)


O.k. So first of all, why isn’t anyone sighing their posts? Are you all afraid of retaliation for stupid ideas? Anyway, I'm a member of the "ingeneration" and I too find this article extremely insulting. (Although I think it should remain in place with some fixes) I absolutely do not take the Internet for granted and to me it still seems like a farley new thing.

When I was in elementary school, I remember kids where just starting to get CD players and only a hand full of the class usually had a computer to do word processing on. The computers at school had 16 colors maybe and we played games that where less graphically detailed than what a 5 year old could draw. As far as the internet goes, me and my class mates didn't even begin to really use the internet for assignments or fun for that matter until around the 5th grade (1999 for me) and it was only that soon because I was in a special program that was testing how technology can affect the learning of young children. I got my first e-mail account when I was 11 and my first computer when I was 12. Sure, I pretty much grew up with computers around me but I can remember a time when I didn't have access to the computer and I most definitely appreciate the wonders of the Internet.

I think it's amazing that I can scan a document into a computer and send it via e-mail in minutes when only a couple of decades ago this would have taken many days or even weeks depending on the location. It absolutely amazes me that I can chat for hours to a friend in Mexico when it would have cost a fortune to talk on the phone that much a decade ago. I also have enough intelligence to realize that a large portion of the world (including countless young adults) have never seen or had access to a computer.

When every household in the world has a computer or at least very easy access to one, I will consider the present generation one that may take the internet for granted but until than I find the assumption an obtuse one. It makes me angry when people automatically think that all teenagers take things for granted. My mother is a baby boomer and I can assure you, she takes the Internet and her cell-phone (which I pay for) more for granted than I do. She freaks out when she can’t reach me because my cell-phone is off and when she wants me to look something up on the internet she starts bugging me about it almost instantaneously when at least members of my generation realize that it takes time to sign on to the internet and look up information. Also, I’m taking college classes while in high school and I find it very interesting that my instructor who is in his 60’s is extremely knowledgeable in Java Programming while I’ve managed to fail the class twice while still working my butt off. Also, for everyone's information I do not have a myspace account and I don't plan on ever having one. Besides, myspace is a relatively new invention and as others said, it will most likely go out of stile like other things have in a matter of a few years. I seriously doubt is validity as a label of my generation.

For all you adults out there, who are feeling so high and mighty and judgmental, STOP BEING SO FREAKIN’ HYPOCRITICAL!!!! For those of you who have the wisdom that’s supposed to come with age, I apologize for this rant and I appreciate your ability to see beyond a label. Jazzyrhythms 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument hold no water, just because MTV Generation is listed between 1974-1985 does not mean MTV had to exist by 1974. People born during those times were aware of the current changes in culture and society that were on-going, especially those prevalent by the launch of MTV in 1981 as a major example. Piecraft 02:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a nice essay. You have some direct from the source material right here. I agree with most of what you are saying(not to imply any disagreement either ^_^)Anthonzi (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bullcrap. I was born in 94, and this article is spot-on and relevant. And what's this about celebrities being able to choose not to have an article? The fuck? Do you know what wikipedia is? 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.228 (talk)

[edit] Current Event Label

I put on the label because people were writing stuff that was true 5 years ago. What the heck? Therefore I put that on.

[edit] Last Part Of Article

"Probebly the Worst Generation Ever, except for the fact that whoever wrote those 5 words doesn't know how to spell; thus, this being the best generation ever." This sentence should probably be deleted. It's at the very end before the References. I don't know how to edit articles, so can someone fix that? "Probably" is spelled wrong...and it seems a bit on the "We're better than you" non-neutral stance. ~~~~Joy


[edit] New Grouping

I think the name should be changed from iGeneration, it sounds to comercial and I know many of this (my) generation who don't own an Ipod or use Myspace, I don't think these really define this generation. Besides there should be one collective generation from 1990-2000 or 1990-2010. All born or will be born during this period could be called the "Digital Generation" because of the mass use of electronics and computers by this generation. Any support??? Please add comments. User:Editor=toast

Wikipedia documents, not decides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.228 (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This generation should be expanded

This should stretch to at least 1989, maybe earlier, as the people born in 1989-93 were too young to remember the pre-Internet era and have grown up with the Net even more so then those born 1994- due to their longer involvement with it. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] igeneration dating?

If we're in it right now how come it stops at 2001?

Rc Her 23:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Simpsons Generation"

I'd always thought, and discussed amongst my friends as, those born from 1990 into the early '90s as being The Simpsons Generation. The internet, portable music devices, computer games and many other items that gained mass popularity in the '90s were invented or had already existed for some time in the 1980s. However, one of the most defining cultural icons of current western (or even more specifically English-speaking) culture - The Simpsons - was "born" on 17 December 1989. (Although Simpsons shorts had been shown on the Tracey Ullman show before that the Simpsons did not exist as a TV program in its own right until that date). Those children born in the early '90s shared the infancy with the show, and have never seen a week go by in their whole lives without an episode of the show on TV.

Anyway, just some musings from an apparently case-book Generation X-er, who moved to a big city at age 17, is single and living in a rented flat because holding down a steady job and a steady relationship at the same time requires too much effort, and who, on a sunny Sunday morning is lying on the lounge listening to Madonna because he's too lazy to put his Mac laptop on the floor and go outside and have a life...

Nvek 01:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think so. I've never seen an episode of the Simpsons in my life, depite being born in 1992. If we're going to define it by a TV show, why not Law & Order, which premiered in 1990. The audience of the Simpsons was, at it's greatest, around 20 million, which obviously would not include a whole generation. ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong 17:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah you see, this falls under Wikipedia:No original research. So no original research please.Anthonzi (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Im putting this page up for deletion or this page should me merged with Generation Y. There is no point for this page. I was born in 93' and we didnt have internet for another decade. Just because something is popular now doesnt meen we can defy it by a generation. Now mybe generation z but not Y MarkDonna 20:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

either way is good. But there are some ongoing afds that we might want to see the results of--perhaps in the meantime, place a suggested merge tag for this fringe theory/neologism. I notice that none of the RSs given seem to support this term. DGG (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a clean up is in order, but dang i was born in the hills of MO in 1976, and i had internet access (at school too,) in 93-94, and the internet really started to take off when i was in college c.1996.--71.97.164.222 06:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are real sources for the use of the term, deletion would be in order. DGG (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I support deletion of this page and similar pages. There should be a merge between all the "current generation" topics into a shorter simple page. User: Editor=toast —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page should be deleted. I don't see any of the content as notable.Anthonzi (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy

As a member of this generation, I must say that the sense that this generation doesn't mind privacy loss due to the internet as completely false. personal data really isn't one's focus, on the contrary, the Internet is used mainly as a way to maintain real world contacts and get easy access to broadcasted data, not access personal data on strangers. In fact, the aninimity of the internet allows any sort of personal information to be completely hidden (like a minor clicking a "yes, I'm 18" link in order to gain access to porn)

In other words, that section of the article needs to be balanced out.--70.244.83.88 02:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Kool, I agree. Then I will go ahead and edit this out. Feel free to argue for these statements, but I haven't seen anyone make a case.Anthonzi (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generation C

There seems to be a page for this, yet they're both described as being pretty much the same thing. Looks like the authors of both are unaware of each other. Could someone perhaps link the two, or merge the smaller into the larger at the very least?

As a matter of personal taste, I prefer the term iGeneration, if only because it was (Likely) coined by someone who's a part of it, and not "The Media". 86.131.13.121 11:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dave, what were you thinking?" 201.21.119.90 04:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref to NY Magazine

Apparently many people here think their writer got it wrong. But that is personal opinion and individual OR. We dont report our own opinions here, but the sources, and NY Magazine is a reliable source. If there are other good sources contradicting it, add them. DGG (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge this and Google generation?

It might be a good idea, considering the notability of both is in question.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


    • DO NOT label any generation with a corporate ID! Thanks.** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Once more: We're here to document, not to decide. If it has been labeled as such in a reliable source, it should be labeled as such in Wikipedia. 14:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.228 (talk)