Talk:History of the World Wide Web

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeHistory of the World Wide Web was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 3, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed


Additions[edit]

I'm gonna be making some additions. Just leaving some notes...

  • Gopher vs Web
  • SHTTP vs HTTPS...
  • Portal wars, search wars, browser wars
  • CGI, SOAP, REST, XmlHttpRequest...
  • Java, XML and Adobe Flash vs HTML5
  • LAMP to MERN
  • Mobile web
  • Great Firewall of China and BATX companies

Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite[edit]

I’ve undertaken a major rewrite of this article. I have a draft at user:Brunnock/sandbox. So far, I have replaced the section on Tim Berners-Lee and CERN. More to come Sean Brunnock (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done now. Sean Brunnock (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added and restored, with improvements, more extensive history. Whizz40 (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You increased the size of the article from 30KB to 86KB. WP:SIZE recommends keeping articles under 50KB. I don't think that's an improvement. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
50KB seems quite brief. In my experience, many, perhaps most, Good and Featured articles are more than 50KB. Whizz40 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The cultural impact of the Web was imagined even further back in a short story by E. M. Forster, "The Machine Stops", first published in 1909.
In France and the United Kingdom, videotex information systems called Prestel and Minitel provided information and services for users in their homes.
In 1996, Robin Li developed RankDex, the first Web search engine with a site-scoring algorithm for results page ranking, and received a US patent for the technology.
Why did you put that junk back into the article? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Different readers will be looking for different aspects of the History of the World Wide Web. See for example, Parallel computing, which has a much longer Background section before going into the topic itself. Whizz40 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at Parallel computing. No references to fictional stories from the turn of the previous century and no claims that China invented parallel computing algorithms before Americans. Any other red herrings? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No strong views on including those two points in this article. Have removed them. Whizz40 (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So, why do you feel so strongly about videotex services from the 70s and 80s? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No strong views on including this. Have removed. Whizz40 (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you bother rewriting the article at all? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I supported your proposal at Talk:History of the Internet#Remove Web stuff to remove the sections specific to the history of the Web from that article and saw the discussion at Talk:World Wide Web#Revamp History about your revamp of the History section on the main WWW article to a more concise version, which referred to this article for the more extensive history. When editing this article, I took into account the comments at the peer review you requested Wikipedia:Peer review/History of the World Wide Web/archive1 and sought to integrate this with the additions and improvements you made, which I found insightful. Overall, as editors, we have achieved an improvement to the article for readers, and that's what Wikipedia is about. Whizz40 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a lot of properly sourced text and added a lot of unsourced text. That's pretty much the opposite of what a good editor should do.
I made proposals and sought input before making changes. You didn't. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on WP:Consensus. I took into account the views of all involved editors:
  • Your views expressed on Talk, at the peer reivew, and through the content you added to the article.
  • Ruбlov at the peer review who said "To be honest, I think it was better before. The sections were organized chronologically rather than topically, which makes more sense for a "History of" article. The rewritten version has lots of very short paragraphs and no images. The original version was perhaps too detailed in places and sorely needed an update for recent history, but these problems could have been dealt with in situ instead of rewriting the article."
  • Artem.G at the peer review who said "...So, to be honest, I'd also prefer previous version: history is better seen with some chronological order, not just 'Google', 'Microsoft', 'Mobile', etc. Old version was poorly sourced and not in a great shape, but you could read from the start and see what was developed when and where we are now. And in current version I would just be confused after reading it, without understanding timelines that are necessary to a 'History of' article."
  • Rp at Talk:World Wide Web#Revamp History who said "I had a quick glance and the difference isn't clear to me. A more extensive history would be nice. The existing text is accurate but a bit simplistic." To which you replied: "If you want more, there's History of the World Wide Web."
  • Volten001 who reverted your edits to World Wide Web#History and left a caution on your talk page about removing this content.
-- Whizz40 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to all of them. You ignored my comments. Why are you making false accusations? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took into account your responses but your comments didn't overcome the issues raised by the other editors. As I said, I found your comments on Talk and the content you added to the article to be insightful and I have supported your overall aims for improving this article along with the World Wide Web article and the History of the Internet article. In addition, I took into account the views of other editors. I believe we have improved all three articles for Wikipedia readers so I propose we celebrate that collective accomplishment which could not have been achieved by any one editor alone. Whizz40 (talk)
You simply reverted my edits to remove false and uncited information. How on earth is that an improvement? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content you added to the article is still present and the changes you proposed on Talk have been achieved. At the same time, I have taken into account the views expressed by other editors who said they preferred the prior version, preferred more extensive history, and did not agree with your drastic removal of content. Whizz40 (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at History_of_the_World_Wide_Web#2004–present:_Ubiquity,_Web_2.0,_Web3- zero citations. WP:USI You're not helping. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The changes that Whizz40 has been making are a definite improvement and I encourage them to continue. It would be good to locate sources for the 2004–present section (and expand it greatly), but WP:USI only encourages the outright removal of content when it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, which is not the case for most of the information in that section. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This combination of more user-created or edited content, and easy means of sharing content, such as via RSS widgets and video embedding, has led to many sites with a typical "Web 2.0" feel. They have articles with embedded video, user-submitted comments below the article, and RSS boxes to the side, listing some of the latest articles from other sites.
I am honestly chuckling right now. You consider that to be an improvement? Good luck sourcing it. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, User:Whizz40! I see you added a bunch of citations. Including a self-published ebook [1]. That's some cracker jack research. Keep up the good work! Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcasm is not a constructive contribution to this conversation, and I don't think your ping worked anyway; the edit in which you link the user's name must also include your signature. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 00:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried being reasonable and we can see how well that worked out.
So, you're OK with copy/pasting entire sections of unsourced text and using unreliable sources, but you draw the line at sarcasm. Great principles, Rublov. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brunnock, many experienced editors prefer an incremental approach to improving Wikipedia articles. Rewrites usually carry a controversial WP:DEMOLISH aspect. Sure, let's look at the unsourced content and evaluate whether there are specific unacceptable verification issues that need to be addressed. The idea that a small article with impeccable sourcing is better than a rambling one with sourcing issues is controversial and since you don't have a consensus of involved editors here for the impeccable path, that's not likely to happen. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I spent 5 days rewriting the article (Feb 14-19).
Whizz40 did most of his edits in 1 day. I wouldn't even call them edits. He just copied large amounts of text from WWW and old versions of this article.
I removed irrelevant text about stories from 1909 and JPEG and MPEG compression. That wasn't controversial. Whizz40 simply put it back in. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brunnock When you say "What are you talking about?" are you dismissing my comment or do need me to somehow clarify what I've said above? ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stated on 2/8 that I wanted to make big changes. No response. I made big changes from 2/14-2/19. Again, no response. Two months later, Whizz40 more than doubles the size of this article in a matter of hours using unsourced text and I'm the one being irresponsible? I dare you to clarify your comments. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brunnock This sounds confrontational. I'm just trying to explain WP culture, not start a fight. I am happy to help further if you care to understand what's happened here from that perspective. If you just want to be right, I'm done here. ~Kvng (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a WP editor since 2005. What do you plan on explaining to me? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NODEADLINES and no response does not constituent a consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2 editors is a consensus? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Against my better judgment I will weigh in here one more time to point out that no fewer than six editors (myself, Artem.G, Whizz40, Rp, Volten001, and now Kvng) have found your changes to web-related articles wanting. That's as clear a consensus as I've ever seen for a minor content dispute in an obscure article. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're being misleading. Most of those editors have never edited this article. Volten001 even admitted he made a mistake in reverting my changes. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement to have edited the article in order to contribute to consensus in a content dispute. ~Kvng (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, if there's no evidence that an editor has even looked at an article, then you are saying it's possible to surmise their intent and therefore declare their consensus? I've been in a few wiki disputes, but that's a new one for me. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence they haven't reviewed the article; WP:AGF applies. ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have no evidence. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

Summarising the remaining points from the Peer review provided by Ruбlov:

Lead

  • The lead should have a lot more information about the 2000s and 2010s.


1994–2004: Open standards, going global

  • Commercialization, dot-com boom and bust, aftermath
    • Dot-com bubble deserves more coverage. What were some notable companies? Why did the bubble burst? How much effect did the bubble have on the development and popularization of the Web?


2004–present: The web as platform, ubiquity

  • Needless to say, this section needs serious expansion for recent occurrences, probably in a new section. Some topics it should cover:

-- Whizz40 (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1991–1994...1994–2004 Why did you list 1994 twice? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some points from 1994 are covered in both sections. I think the article flows better this way. Whizz40 (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Time periods in section headings are now mutually exclusive. Whizz40 (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The Web began to enter general use around 1994, when websites of general interest became available.
As popularity increased through ease of use, investment incentives also grew until in the middle of 1994 the Web's popularity gained the upper hand.
General use of the Web began in 1993–1994, when websites of general interest became available. Some notable websites were active by 1994.
This is just badly written. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded:
Websites for use by the general public began to emerge in 1993–94.
As its popularity increased through ease of use, incentives for commercial investment in the Web also grew. By the middle of 1994, the Web was outcompeting Gopher and the other other browsing systems for the Internet.
Websites for use by the general public began to emerge in 1993–1994, including some notable websites.
--Whizz40 (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're going in circles. Those statements are all meaningless. That's why you can't find decent citations for them.
The Web became popular. Popular compared to what? Other Internet protocols? Other hypertext applications?
I replaced that pablum with the following-
Mosaic was an immediate hit.[1] Within a year, Web traffic surpassed Gopher's.[2]
Wired declared that Mosaic made non-Internet online services obsolete.[3]
Do you see the difference? Each of those statements is backed by a relevant and verifiable citation. It's clear to the reader what was happening. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text in italics above has now been reworded or replaced. The text above which you added is still in the article. The following citation supports the web began to enter everyday use in 1993-94:[4] Whizz40 (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "web" does not appear anywhere on page 2 of your citation. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false statement. Whizz40 (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just searched again and you're correct. I apologize. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.news-gazette.com/news/mosaic-started-web-rush-internet-boom/article_a459cd7f-dafe-5de4-a5fe-c3723a009af2.html
  2. ^ https://www.minnpost.com/business/2016/08/rise-and-fall-gopher-protocol/
  3. ^ https://www.wired.com/1994/10/mosaic/
  4. ^ Couldry, Nick (2012). Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice. London: Polity Press. p. 2. ISBN 9780745639208.

Comments by Brunnock[edit]

[This comment was edited to remove a personal attack]

Following the introduction of the Web, several media formats based on discrete cosine transform (DCT) were introduced for practical media distribution and streaming over the Web, including the MPEG video format in 1991 and the JPEG image format in 1992

This is completely false. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duniyaa ka amir insan banta hai[edit]

Life is short always be rich 2402:8100:26E6:AB82:60E8:7739:9D9F:2F4B (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_World_Wide_Web&oldid=1219225266"