Talk:Internet

Capitalisation

I can understand why the saga above was eventually closed, but it seems to me to be yet another example of US-centric decision-making. Pretty much all of the rest of the world doesn't capitalise, and everyone understands what it means, and why the World Wide Web is different and a proper noun. In my professional life, WAN was always used in preference to "an internet", from at least 10 years ago and probably 15. And having just googled my way through a variety of sources, I still think it's the wrong decision to capitalise. I suggest raising it again in 2021, taking steps to ensure that enough non-US-based editors participate in the discussion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink, perhaps you are saying then that this should not be a monolithic single style, but rather a WP:ENGVAR issue, where in American English we capitalize most times, but in e.g. British English or Indian English we would not. Elizium23 (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a thought, Elizium23 - but that would have to be discussed and consensus reached, either way. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

To distract from the discussion, why is it that "the Internet" didn't get an actual name, other than that of its underlying technology? As it was being built, and even now, parts of it have names. There was NSFNET and MILNET, the early parts of the US Government run scientific and military networks, respectively. US DOE ran ESNET (Energy Sciences network). I do find it interesting sometimes to find people whose family name is actually an ordinary noun, though many names are based on (presumably historically) someone's occupation. In any case, the Internet could have had a nice name like WorldNet or GlobalNet or some such, but it didn't. In any case, it does need a proper noun name, and that seems to be Internet. Gah4 (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"WAN" has nothing to do with Internet. It is interconnection of autonomous systems. 2A00:1370:812D:8D4D:12D:BE3D:B8CF:637D (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I also agree too that WAN is interconnection of Autonomous systems Courtesy Smith (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think a significant part of the issue is what "Internet" is being referred to. The Internet architecture or Internet model has always been, and will presumably always be, capitalized. The capitalized Internet, at least in academia, refers to the Internet in relation to those. I.e., not the web, not Instagram, not Reddit, not Wikipedia, not a random website, etc, while the internet tends to refer to a service, such as Facebook, Instagram etc rather than the infrastructure or architecture itself or the coordination or governance thereof. Compare, for example, "I read that vaccines cause autism on the internet" (lowercase intended) vs "a core value of the Internet model is its descriptive nature over a prescriptive dito such as the OSI-model" (capitalization intended). Flindeberg (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The Internet is not "a thing", or has a well defined governance structure, or is even well defined. I cannot see how someone could intentionally name "it". Compare with, for example, Bluetooth. Bluetooth is well defined, it is a basket of protocols for radio communication over short distances. Bluetooth has a well defined governance structure, the Bluetooth Special Interests Group (SIG). If the Bluetooth SIG change the name of Bluetooth to Rednose that name change would be final. In contrast there is no centrally governing institution for the Internet. There is ICANN, which formally coordinates the DNS-root most of the Western world uses (or more precise, IANA does that), but only the root (i.e. TLDs), it has no power over those who chose to use a different root (which is very possible technically). IP-number spaces are more difficult in a technical sense to avoid, but nothing prevents you from using another IP (except that packets won't reach you) or announce your own prefix (which most networks would ignore) etc. There is also the IETF, and the IETF publishes documents in a series called the RFC-series, some of these RFCs are intended to be used as standards, but no one will force you to follow those standards. I think this is quite central to the whole naming / capitalization issue. Since there is no coherence except an voluntary agreement to use some standards roughly according to specification it is hard to define what it is and what to name it. Flindeberg (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be good to get this settled one way or the other. In spite of the 'no consensus' result of the November 2020 RFC, this very discussion here is being relied on by an IP editor at Christmas music as providing support for their preferred "Internet" option (Talk:Christmas_music#Capitalisation_of_"internet"). Maybe time for an updated RFC soon? MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

There was another RFC in 2021, which ran for months but got nowhere: [1] Popcornfud (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Not a formal RFC but a well-attended discussion. Given that that went nowhere, there doesn't seem much point in launching anything new at the moment. Maybe things will become clearer in a year or two. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I misremembered that as an RFC. My bad.

I think it's only a matter of time before Wikipedia formally goes lowercase. The weight of the reliable sources on this subject is crushing at this point and, as you pointed out on the other talk page, it's obviously out of keeping with our caps policy generally, and as far as I can tell the only opposition is dogmatic. It's probably correct that Wikipedia is the last major publication (if that's the right word) to decap, since Wikipedia follows rather than leads. Popcornfud (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That discussion was a fascinating read, though. My favourite argument, the absolute definition of linguistic prescription, was "Come now, you must recognise why 'everyone else is doing it' is a poor reason :) Just remember that no matter how popular something is, that doesn't always make it correct or right." MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is a thing, in the sense that you know if you are, or are not, connected to it. Not so many years ago, it was usual for large (or small) corporations to have their own (small i) internet. There wasn't a big need to connect to outside networks. (In the NSFnet days, connections such as e-mail were not allowed between .COM domains. Academic and government users could contact each other, or .COM, though.) There was, and I believe still is, MILnet, the internet for the US defense department. NSFnet was US government funded for connecting (mostly) universities with government contracts. And for some time there was UUnet, a network of hosts connected through the UUCP protocol using dialup modems. I suspect the (big I) Internet could have had a more original name, if it had been thought up at the right time. There are likely still some corporate and government nets not connected to the (proper noun) Internet. Gah4 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment If what you said is true, then the rest of the world is wrong, we should definitely capitalize the word. The word internet (also internetwork) is simply a contraction of the phrase interconnected network. However, when written with a capital "I", the Internet refers to the worldwide set of interconnected networks. Hence, the Internet is an internet, but the reverse does not apply.

End of the discussion. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:E910:5CCB:3DC2:FC81 (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Internet

The internet usually means the connection between two or more devices from different sources such as from a Samsung Galaxy AO4 to an iPhone 13 Pro Max. It may involve connecting wirelessly. Courtesy Smith (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So? 2001:8003:9100:2C01:E910:5CCB:3DC2:FC81 (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

Why the Internet is so popular, giving reasons such as the amount of information available and the speeds of assessing information? Information on the Internet tends to be up-to-date because it is quicker and easier to amend web page then it is to, for example, reprint books.

Why Internet searches are not always a fast way of finding information. When using search engines, there is always the danger of information overload. It is possible to find millions of website that match the given criteria. Unless the user narrow down their search criteria, it can take long time to find out exactly what they are looking for see figures 10.9 to 10.11.

Why it is not always easy to find reliable information on the Internet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.192.226.30 (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

These are good questions, but I think it would be difficult to address them in an encyclopedic fashion. The article would need to address this by citing facts and well-researched opinions from reputable sources. Rp (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:E910:5CCB:3DC2:FC81 (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@ 2.90.197.82 (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

kea 175.100.11.59 (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2024

Please change "India's 28%" to "India's 60%" Reference 101 is correct, just uses wrong column for statistic, should be Penetration% Population not Users% Asia. NoLegsMcGee (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Verified and  Done ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)