![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This article currently represents a history of the infrastructure and use of the Internet. The word Internet is taken to mean the current concept of the single global network in current use. Internet should only be capatalised when refering to the 'global' internet, which originates after NSFNet. Please be aware that prior to formation of this global 'Internet', the word 'internet' was used to refer to multiple networks and technologies. A paper published prior to this useage may refer to 'connecting to the internet', while refering a hypothetical technology or infrastructure. Try not to confuse these referals to mean the current global Internet.
This is an article with very wide scope, please use summary style. It is very likely that most additions to this page are worthy of, or already have, articles of their own dedicated to the topic. If you feel a particular subtopic that does not have its own article is worthy of it, then create one and link to it, Be Bold.
Specific technical history or development history belongs on the page of the technology concerned, not this page. For instance, development history specific to TCP/IP belongs on TCP-IP#Development. Again, this might mean the creation of new articles.
Please use the appropriate cite templates, and inline link to these cites where appropriate in the text. See Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Cite sources.
-- Barberio 12:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
This Is Not A Technical History. Specific technical issues, and detailed discussion of devlopment of the technologies (including 'competition' between different methodologies) belongs on articles specific to that technology. There are too many technologies developed for and involved with the current Global Internet for them to be included in a single article. Please either expand the pages for those technologies, or create them. -- Barberio 13:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
"Internet should only be capatalised when refering to the 'global' internet, which originates after NSFNet. " The above statement is incorrect with respect to "originates after NSFnet". Both CSNET and NSFNET supported users in multiple countries and were 'global'. The statement should, like all wikipedia statements, either be appropriately backed up by references or removed from the guidelines. 38.127.208.3 ( talk) 12:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC). The internet is the most useful thing on earth if no one figured out the way to make electricity we would .....DIED.....
While we all know Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore invented the internet along with inventing global warming, also in the 1990's, in fact the DARPANET was begun in 1968, when this note writer - wet willy sr - approved the DARPA contracts to use PDP8's to hook the first DARPANET up with contract let out of RADC (Rome Air Development Center) Griffis ARB, Rome, NY. : ))
Also missing the global OPARS network, hooking all the globe together in 1969, decades before you first show it, also approved by the CINCU, wet willy sr.
See also global OTH network, PAVEPAWS, Project Overlord, etc - all in the years 1968-69. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.159.228 ( talk) 08:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that there is too much focus on non-internet networks, which will have to be deleted to make space for what is missing. 62.121.101.201 23:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
As some of you may know, the first message ever sent over ARPANET was supposed to be 'LOGIN' but the network crashed after the 'O.' Perhaps this interesting bit could be included in a 'Facts' or a 'Trivia' section. -> http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~lk/LK/Inet/1stmesg.html
FLAW 360: 360 being the magic scale of pi,; there is that the number of the internet is 742 where mainframes are the majority of concern: in this way i found that 'video' takes up the most memory and it "slows" the mainframe into 247 equations, : in this way a sort of juke box which can equate the 290r of video footage set to 390 might help [come] there is that this is where they are trying to Hatch Mianframes with Servers over various attitudes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.235.232 ( talk) 10:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We need more information on the spread of the Internet over Africa and Asia.
At the moment, the only information I have on Africa is a single paper from 1991, when X.25 IPSS and 2400 baud modem UUCP links were still in use. [1]
I'd don't have any on South America, Asia and Easten Europe. -- Barberio 16:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Lots of information added on Asia now. Still need some info on Eastern Europe and South Africa, but not found much. -- Barberio 18:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed the notes list from a bullet list to a numbered list, because that is much easier to search. But the list-numbers do not correspond with the note-numbers. Are we missing a note/reference? ~ 8 dec 2005, 16:08 CET
"The goal of the researchers creating the Internet was to create a network of networks" --Ronda Hauben, "The Internet: On its International Origins and Collaborative Vision (A Work In Progress)", cited in the Notes. -- Ancheta Wis 10:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There might be mention of the multiple architectures extant, such as Alohanet, which existed during the time when Bulletin Boards (BBSs) were the only conception that was user-oriented.
The competition of ideas, like the 7-layer protocol, which was supplanted by the simpler TCP/IP 4-layer stack, does not seem to be mentioned. There does not seem to be the sense that there could (and probably will) be other implementations. -- Ancheta Wis 10:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
First, we need to make sure that we're doing a history of the Internet, and wikipedia's [Internet] article reads "The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to serve billions of users worldwide. " Now it is true that common use of the term also include World Wide Web, and a redirection pointer at the top for History of the World Wide Web is also in order. In any case, the article contains much cruft about the history of computing as opposed to networks / packet networking that needs to be struck out.
63.170.69.237 ( talk) 04:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The ITU (and its predecessors) insisted on the use of X.25 and other approved protocols like X.400 and X.500, which impeded interoperability with other networks. Where is this mentioned? -- Ancheta Wis 10:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Where is the mention of the use of the RFC as a dodge to circumvent the elaborate approval mechanisms in use by the Bell System and the ITU? -- Ancheta Wis 10:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
We need a replacement for the Leonard Kleinrock & IMP image that is acceptable under Wikipedia:Image use policy. -- Barberio 10:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The picture of "The first World Wide Web Server" shows a CRT display and an open manual with paper pages. It looks like the server required a human operator to look up directions for each operation. Is this unintentional, or a subtle joke slipped in by a sly editor? -- Blainster 18:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops, OK. I didn't notice the posted info. Unfortunately many of the small sized images in Wiki articles are not well lighted. The dark system unit doesn't show up very well. If someone could pop into the museum for an angled shot with a brighter flash, it would help. -- Blainster 23:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that this was not a deliberate deselection of p2p when I made the re-write. I chose WWW and Email as the applications to mention because there are almost literaly the defining applications of the current Internet.
While p2p is an important technology, the wide spread social implications of it are still yet to be seen. Unlike the WWW, and e-mail, we have not yet seen how p2p is going to change social and economic functions, if at all. There are indications that it will, but crystal balls are not a subject for a history article. I think it is overly tempting to add p2p because it is the 'big name of the time'. However, as a history article, we should fight this.
Now, I use p2p applications every day, but I don't think they have yet penetrated global society in the way email and the WWW have. It would probably be a mistake to atempt to mention every recordable use or application on the internet. That way ends up with turning the article into a list. There is already such a list at List of Internet topics
So I'm going to propose a guideline. 'Historicaly notable applications or uses of the Internet should have had impact to the majority of internet users or fundamental implication in society at the time of their use'
-- Barberio 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
History of the Internet is an article likely to get searches from many non-technical people. Without any Use and Culture section, there is nothing in the article they will understand. There is no other single article which covers the same topic, either. The history of the World Wide Web is NOT the History of the Internet. The WWW was only one of a number of competing methodologies until after the introduction of Mosaic. In 1994, most people were using Gopher, and had scarcely heard of the WWW, or of WAIS. An article which eliminates all mention of those competing Internet systems does not serve its readers. -- CGMullin 21:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I cannot verify this and it seems to conflict with some other assertions. ( This indicates only 390,000 documents in 1994.) Can someone give a cite?
Also, claiming Lycos as the first search engine is dubious (Previous link only states "one of the earliest search engines", EiNet perhaps has a claim, and WAIS also bears mention.) Any better authorities on that? KWH 03:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been checking around in some related articles, notably the Search engine article, and also the WAIS, Archie search engine, and Gopher protocol articles, and have made some corrections here. Lycos was FAR from the first search engine, it was just the first one to make a lot of money for its creators. CGMullin 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
WebCrawler is the first crawler based search engine, that might be worth a sentence or two.-- Scorpion451 05:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that relevant words should be wikilinked only in their first appearence within any one article. And yet a lot of words are annoyingly linked all over the place, the main culprits being ARPANET, X.25 and TCP/IP.
Or am I making this up? PizzaMargherita 21:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[Do not link] Words that have been linked earlier in the article. This advice follows the standard practice of defining or explaining a term, or spelling out an acronym, on its first occurrence in a text and not subsequently.
Also, the article makes use of both "U.S." and "US" as adjectives. This is not only inconsistent and non-standard, but also unnecessary, since "American" would be unambiguous and accepted by both American English and Commonwealth English speakers. PizzaMargherita 21:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Since the guideline was changed without consensus, it's been restored, and I'll go about restoring links in the page as apropriate. -- Barberio 08:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Please please stop putting sentence clauses into brackets. This is not proper practice. This is a good use of the bracket - Johnston Kingly (86) won the shuffleboard cup. - while this is not - Johnston Kingly (The 86 year old plumber) won the shuffleboard cup. -- Barberio 08:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Your example is slightly ironic in that is contradicts proper grammar not to have at least some sort of sentance clause explaining the apparently arbitrary number in parenthesis. page 86? Entry 86? Score at shuffleboard 86(very impressive!)-- Scorpion451 05:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Barberio, please stop reverting perfectly valid edits ( [2], [3]) with no justification. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 08:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please drop one sentence in the article explaining briefly the relationship between UUCP and Usenet? I don't think it's clear at the moment. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 08:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we want to go into UUCP and Usenet's links too closely here, assoiating the two, and directing attention to their articles is enough. We want to keep this in Summary Style. -- Barberio 10:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In "Email and Usenet—The growth of the text forum", is "forum" a typo for "form"? Either way, what does it mean? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The definition you quote is missing a key element, the word "public". Since Roman times, fora have been public places of discussion, which email in general is not.
Exactly because the article does not mention internet forums, the issue of ambiguity is not irrelevant. I propose we get rid of the whole "The growth of the text forum" phrase.
I challenge you to apply this made-up hyphen grammatical rule of yours to web-related WP articles and see how far you get. Come on, start with internet forum. PizzaMargherita 06:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I made some edits. It's still pretty choppy, though, and the idea behind the title--which I support--doesn't really come through. The problem as I see it is not the title, but the fact that it is implicitly arguing that the significance of email and Usenet was that they provided a forum (and by extension created a community)--and then the section text doesn't really pay off on that. It's just a bunch of facts without any real evaluation of their significance. · rodii · 02:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
So anyway, how is it the growth of "the" text forum? Surely email (which I must insist is not a forum) and usenet would make at least two separate fora, right? PizzaMargherita 16:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've seen and read through a copy of Raymond S. Rodgers' obscure 1971 booklet Man in the Telesphere, which predicted an Internet-like network that would link computers and people globally, and which used the word "web" to describe this system. But should he and his booklet be mentioned in this article? I'm unsure that merely because someone predicted something makes them worthy of mention, particularly if few people listened to the prediction. On the other hand, it is an interesting bit of trivia, at the very least. Here's a link to a rather defensive web site about the topic THE 1971 PREDICTION OF THE "WEB" / TELESPHERE-- Skb8721 15:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
As BBN developed the first IMP and ran the ARPANET initially, there should be a mention of this.
I too find this odd. They could also be considered part of the initial node along with UCLA and SRI, albeit for maintenance and monitoring purposes. A fine book that includes BBN's part in the development of ARPANET is Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet by Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon. Yasgur ( talk) 03:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the article deal with ARPANET and it's development. As far as the book being mis-titled, I think most sources agree that the ARPANET was the main origin of the Internet. [6] [7] Yasgur ( talk) 21:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
CSNET was as early as ARPANEt, and it was definitely the Internet. If there's going to be references to ARPANET and CSNET, then BBN should be included in the article. (It's interesting that by the end of the article it's clear the the only organization with clear records of the earliest days of the Internet was BBN) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.116.217 ( talk) 10:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The article discusses the role of Windows 95 in the mainstreaming of the Internet, but that's not how I remember it at least. To my mind the first big step that drew media attention to the Internet and drove the expansion of the dial-up ISPs that made Internet access possible for mere mortals was the Mosaic web browser. Note that this is also how Internet tells it. — ciphergoth 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The only cite for this is pretty sloppy looking. It appears to be notes from a lecture, and is riddled with formatting and context mistakes. The actual part of it refering to 1000% increase says "Claims were often made of a doubling every three or four months which corresponds to an annual growth rate of 1000%. Such growth rates did exist did hold during 1995 and 1996. However, growth slowed down to about 100% during 1997, which is in line to the average growth rate of 100% a year for the entire 30-year history of the internet.", which seems to be saying the records of growth are patchy, and that some measures claimed a doubling over periods of three months. This is then sloppily extrapolated to a "1000%" yearly increase. I don't think this is a clear cite of a growth spurt in 1995. -- Barberio 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone find any information about the battle over commercialization that happend in the early 90s. I know there was a court case over one of the first commercial webiste and the Universities banned it. The court sided with the website. I remember this but can find no mention of it on the internet now.
MindStalker
20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)MindStalker
I do not think this article should be tagged. The Interent was created from the ARPANET and for years only existed in the USA being funded later by the National Science Foundation. As such the world view of this article is correct since the article itself correctly describes the history on the world view. Because the Internet was created in the USA and with funds from the NSF does not mean it is not correctly showing the world view.
Please reply to me regarding this on my talk page. I plan to begin work on this article shortly and will remove this tag if there are no objections. I am currently looking at and correcting supporting documents before I begin. -- akc9000 ( talk • contribs • count) 13:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I will preface with this statement: the ARPANET was the first attempt at an internet-like network. I am not trying to rewrite history. However, I belive that it is important to note in the article at least briefly that the first proof of concept for the idea came from the linking of radar stations though phone line connections. This was a project in the United States Air Force in the mid-1960's. It only passed very simple messages and was, as I said, only a proof of concept before the full investment of the military into the ARPANET. It is however, a notable and little known point in the timeline of the internet, and deserves at least a brief mention.-- Scorpion451 05:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've come accross this [8] on the BBC News website, published today. I don't know if it will be of help but thought might as well give you the link and see. Regards, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this ridiculously out of scale drawing. Not only is it wrong, at first glance it looks like the areas of the boxes represent the actual ip address space. This is nothing short of deceptive. Right now this drawing offers nothing in the way of enlightenment and only serves to confuse. If we are to draw an accurate representation of the Ip address space, we would need to use a box that measures 2.8*10^14 pixels on each side. One pixel of that would be the IPv4 address space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.164.46 ( talk) 03:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to have made some odd edits to the top of the article, that left it in a very confused state. Including obliterating the lead, and replacing it with the top paragraph which made no sense as a lead, and then messing up the formatting. I assume this was the result of some bad fixes to repair vandal edits. Let's try to take a bit more care? -- Barberio ( talk) 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Having had to repair some considerable damage to the article, including blanked out sections and other vandal-edits that had been left uncorrected in this article since October, I'm even more disillusioned about Wikipedia than I was when I suspended my editing. -- Barberio ( talk) 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
the article says
In October 1962, Licklider was appointed head of the United States Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, now known as DARPA, within the information processing office. There he formed an informal group within DARPA to further computer research. As part of the information processing office's role, three network terminals had been installed: one for System Development Corporation in Santa Monica, one for Project Genie at the University of California, Berkeley and one for the Multics project SHOPPING at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
I was at MIT and worked at Project MAC in the 60s and have not heard of "Project SHOPPING." Multics was not begun until 1964-65. The idea of "network terminals" being installed at DARPA is misleading, since there was no network other than the PSTN... and calling up one of these systems to use it was an adventure in tie lines and long distance operators.
I think the references to "project SHOPPING" and Multics should be removed or supported with better evidence and dates.
regards, tom (editor multicians.org)
Thvv ( talk) 00:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why there is a paragraph on the WWW in an article on the Internet but it is out of place, has no sources and links to the actual internet article. Not to mention it might help perpertrate the idea that the web = the internet. If anyone has no objections i am going to delete it. DyloniusFunk ( talk) 22:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Richard Robins ( talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Seems like a good suggestion. I feel the History of the Internet page tries to cover far too much information in a limited space. There could be reference to key ideas and new pages created to cover these topics. The article ignores critical developments in the 1980s, which set the stage for rapid growth in the 1990s. There's no mention of the U.S. Government's privatization of the Internet in the early 90s that opened usage up.
You two are incompetent, the Web is one of the most important and famous systems carried by the Internet. Of course it should be there. 209.148.247.171 ( talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"best internet"(or Verio) is listed as opening commercial access to the west coast in 1986, but this is obviously not true. Even the link provided by the editor shows the date to be 1996 1 -- Zsieg ( talk) 00:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The citation provided by the editor doesn't claim that they were the first commercial dial-up west coast ISP in 1996, but the editor does. Further, it is trivial to show that Earthlink predates them in 1995 and if memory serves, other dial-up providers existed locally prior to that. 173.50.179.45 ( talk) 19:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The current state of this article is deplorable. Whoever wrote it is not only ignorant of the Internet but also is ignorant in general about the nature of scientific discovery and creation.
The Internet is an information highway, not a protocol. Whoever does not understand what information scientifically is should go and read up on it not waste our time here with childish amateur gossip. -- 209.148.247.171 ( talk) 05:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The main page seems impervious to editing so I place my suggested change here.
Early in the article, a reference is made to the internet being accessed by scientists on all 7 continents (obviously, including Antarctica).
Under the continent-by-continent section, this sentence seems quite jarring: The Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), headquartered in Australia, manages IP address allocation for the continent.
I suggest the sentence be revised to end: "...for the vast region including its two continents."
As geographic background, the Asia-Pacific region includes roughly half of the world's surface, so the use of "vast" may be appropriate.
thanks Ertdfgcvb ( talk) 10:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Further to my comment an hour ago, I suggest that the references to North America under the "Worldwide Online Population Forecast" subheading be clarified. North America is traditionally defined as the mainland from Alaska and Canada in the north down to include Panama in the south, plus the Caribbean islands. A more recent, and confusing, use of the NA term especially popular in business matters, uses NA as meaning only the USA plus Canada. For instance, the telephone country code 001 is often referred to as North America when it is, in fact, not the full continent.
I suspect that this latter two-nation definition is the one used in this article. If so, I suggest that a notation be added after the first use of the term "North America", such as "(defined as the USA plus Canada)" or perhaps "restricted to".
So, the fundamental question is whether Mexico, the six states of Central America, and the Caribbean are included in the statistics cited. If not, NA should be clearly defined.
Statistics cited with extreme precision, such as "1.1%", become meaningless if they apply to an area that is vague, misleading or uncertain.
Thanks Ertdfgcvb ( talk) 11:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In order to uphold the quality of
Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the
GA criteria as part of the
GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of
October 16,
2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from
WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at
WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at
WP:GAR.
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the last good version of this page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_the_Internet&oldid=257453748
Could someone please look at the diff and correct the changes. I'm still new to this so I don't feel comfortable changing the article myself.
Thanks.
192.88.212.43 ( talk) 17:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I just listened to a lecture where the speaker insisted a lot on the "End-to-end principle", it reminded me of a video I saw earlier:
[ [10]]
at 5:30, they explain that this was the idea of a project that is not mentionned in your article: Cyclades, by an institute called Inria. Is this relelvant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.49.98 ( talk) 01:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
"The history of the Internet began with the ARPANET and connected mainframe computers on dedicated connections. The second stage involved adding desktop PCs which connected through telephone wires. The third stage was adding wireless connections to laptop computers. And currently the Internet is evolving to allow mobile phone"
That's it? Not even a full stop on the end? This is garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.47.139 ( talk) 15:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Both the "Main developments in Internet history" and the "Before the Internet" sections say
The research led to the development of several packet-switched networking solutions in the late 1960s and 1970s,[1] including ARPANET and the X.25 protocols. Additionally, public access and hobbyist networking systems grew in popularity, including unix-to-unix copy (UUCP) and FidoNet. They were however still disjointed separate networks, served only by limited gateways between networks. This led to the application of packet switching to develop a protocol for inter-networking, where multiple different networks could be joined together into a super-framework of networks. By defining a simple common network system, the Internet protocol suite, the concept of the network could be separated from its physical implementation. This spread of inter-network began to form into the idea of a global inter-network that would be called 'The Internet', and this began to quickly spread as existing networks were converted to become compatible with this. This spread quickly across the advanced telecommunication networks of the western world, and then began to penetrate into the rest of the world as it became the de-facto international standard and global network. However, the disparity of growth led to a digital divide that is still a concern today.
That should either be removed or rewritten from/in one of the sections. Urdna ( talk) 16:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
My edit comment got truncated, so here's the full version. Notice all the boxes labelled "Other gateway"? Those are all non-BBN routers. (Many were Fuzzballs, if you remember them.) So that new caption is incorrect.
And thanks for reminding me why I quit Wikipedia. Noel (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Over time, a lot of uncited material has been added to the article, which has resulted in the loss of the 'good article' mark. We need to go through the article to first mark out uncited claims with {{ fact}} to give citation needed to flag where we need to find a cite. Some current website cites have also been reported to no longer be available, so a check over current cites is needed. -- Barberio ( talk) 14:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
These texts were used as references in the creation of the History of the Internet article. However, they were added to the article at a time when there was no accepted system of inline citation, and there is no link between the references and what they are cited to support. This leaves some parts of the article apparently uncited, but supposedly supported by these texts.
Can someone with these texts please read over the article, and identify the sections and statements that are supported by these texts.
Thanks in advance. -- Barberio ( talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The orirgins of the internet and the world wide web are unusual in the history of commerical media. What makes them unusual and what qualities does that impact to the media???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.44.120 ( talk) 03:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Do your own homework, bucko. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.44.254.86 (
talk)
16:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I recently added a chapter (Precursors and early dev.) in that book, but I don't know if I got everything, or if I gave some things undue prominence compared to others. Feedback? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I counted 15 vandalism edits since October 1st, most of them by IPs. As a result I've semiprotected the article. Please let me know if anyone disagrees. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This article gives way too much coverage to other networks (fido) and copy utilities (UUCP) and way too little to ARPANET. The internet is directly based on ARPANET, but not on FIDO or UUCP. It's making the others seem just as important, when they are not. The internet would not exist without ARPANET. It would exist without FIDO or UUCP, etc. 75.25.101.110 ( talk) 03:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The introduction here seems a little too big for a Wikipedia article. Can it be shortened in any way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rredwell ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Would someone like to correct the spelling of the word "lose" (as in: ... temporarily 'lose' contact because they move ... ) in the following paragraph?:
Communication with spacecraft beyond earth orbit has traditionally been over point-to-point links through the Deep Space Network. Each such data link must be manually scheduled and configured. In the late 1990s NASA and Google began working on a new network protocol, Delay-tolerant networking (DTN) which automates this process, allows networking of spaceborn transmission nodes, and takes the fact into account that spacecraft can temporarily loose - PLEASE CHANGE TO LOSE - contact because they move behind the Moon or planets, or because space "weather" disrupts the connection. Under such conditions, DTN retransmits data packages instead of dropping them, as the standard TCP/IP internet protocol does. NASA conducted the first field test of what it calls the "deep space internet" in November 2008.[31]
There's quite a succinct explanation of the definitions and the difference between lose and loose on the following web page: http://www.ross.net/notes/loose.shtml
Thanks!
62.31.226.48 (
talk)
04:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
"IPTO" is mentioned several times in the text, but is neither linked nor spelled out. It should link to Information Processing Techniques Office. 72.208.145.184 ( talk) 22:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Done --
Kvng (
talk)
16:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, the article says, "Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1994 when the National Science Foundation (NSF) developed the Computer Science Network (CSNET) and again in 1986 when NSFNET provided access to supercomputer sites in the United States from research and education organizations." It doesn't make sense that something happened "in 1994" "and again in 1986."
According to the article on the [ Science Network (CSNET)], it was "developed starting in the late 1970s" and "was funded by the National Science Foundation for an initial three-year period from 1981 to 1984." So perhaps the article should be changed to read:
"Access to the ARPANET was expanded in the early 1980s when the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the Computer Science Network (CSNET) and again in 1986 when NSFNET provided access to supercomputer sites in the United States from research and education organizations."
-- Sandy Schuman ( talk) 17:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the search engine section is unreferenced (after the first sentence) and seems to be promotion for Bing. Ryanb808 ( talk) 21:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Seopfer ( talk) 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
What effect did the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 have on the creation of the Internet? Did it help the Internet come into being? Did it promote use of the Internet by private individuals, research institutions, or the US government? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 19:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I seem to remember the average person (in my country) wasn't able to get onto the internet until around 1992 or so... before then the only people with access were in universities. Why not have a section on the social aspect of the history of the internet? Frankly, the internet's major importance is a social phenomenon, and it'd be nice to have something about that in this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 01:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is missing the ENTIRE 1990's. The whole point of an internet history article to me is how today's major websites: yahoo, google, wikipedia, myspace, etc, came about. The history of search engines, of memes, of filesharing, of everything in the whole 1990-2010 span which is ABSENT from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.217.83 ( talk) 03:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Please make 'Peter Kirstein' (one occurrence) link to the Peter T. Kirstein page. Why isn't this article editable so that I could do it myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.43.184 ( talk) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-- Not quite correct. These parameter spaces (DNS, IP) are also under the IETF, but per RFC2860, ICANN coordinates policy development in these spaces.
-- This only notes the DNS transition; IP responsibility was delegated to RIPE, then APNIC, then by NSF from the above INTERNIC to ARIN, then after ICANN LACNIC and Afrinic RIRs were formed. [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.252.200 ( talk) 14:54, 30 March 2012
Why was the following content deleted by SudoGhost at 23:34 on 28 June 2011 with the comment "Reverted to revision 436773896 by Ohnoitsjamie: Please use talk page before restoring this material.."?
Jeff Ogden ( talk) 04:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Replying to Jeff Ogden and others concerned: I just deleted that section as the claim is not supported by the source cited. Claim: "It is estimated that in 1993 the Internet carried only 1% of the information flowing through two-way telecommunication. By 2000 this figure had grown to 51%, and by 2007 more than 97% of all telecommunicated information was carried over the Internet. [1]"
The table of contents for the cited paper shows the cited pages have to do w/ storage, and don't concern the given stats: C Storage ............................................................................. 50 C.2 Films for cinema and TV ........................................................................ 58 C.2.2 Cinematographic Films: performance ......................................................... 60 C.2.3 TV Films and TV episodes: performance ...................................................... 62 C.2.4 Content compression ............................................................................ 64 C.3 Analog Photography ............................................................................. 64 C.3.1 Negatives: performance ........................................................................ 64 C.3.2 Printed photos: performance .................................................................. 65
Given the subject matter of the 254 pg paper, the info may be in it somewhere, but I couldn't find it by searching. Hopefully some expert can clear this up, as I want to know. According to the Global Information Industry Center at the University of California, San Diego, of all Bytes received by consumers, 17 times as many are received via TV compared with the Internet. And when measured in hours, TV is more than double than the Internet, and approaching double when measured in words. hmi.ucsd.edu/pdf/HMI_2009_ConsumerReport_Dec9_2009.pdf (p. 27) Gorkelobb ( talk) 01:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
"In 1982 the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced. Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1981…."
The Network Control Protocol (NCP) should be introduced earlier than where it as cited as Jon Postel's RFC. NCP needs to be mentioned in the History of the Internet#ARPAnet section to make clear that a decade of experience passed before the advent of TCP. This is an effective feature which which filters out people who claim knowledge from that period of time. 64.9.237.38 ( talk) 21:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The DNS is only really mentioned in passing, yet it is a significant factor that determines the functionality and evolution of the Net, and much more relevant to the Internet per se that "search engines", which are merely applications. I don't have time to address this, but it seems that it some text should be inserted. Nexus501 ( talk) 21:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Was there such a browser? Have noticed a peremptory violation out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.10.57.86 ( talk) 05:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"ICANA begins accepting applications for new generic top-level domain names" should be corrected to "ICANN begins accepting applications for new generic top-level domain names"
38.101.255.135 ( talk) 05:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This article currently represents a history of the infrastructure and use of the Internet. The word Internet is taken to mean the current concept of the single global network in current use. Internet should only be capatalised when refering to the 'global' internet, which originates after NSFNet. Please be aware that prior to formation of this global 'Internet', the word 'internet' was used to refer to multiple networks and technologies. A paper published prior to this useage may refer to 'connecting to the internet', while refering a hypothetical technology or infrastructure. Try not to confuse these referals to mean the current global Internet.
This is an article with very wide scope, please use summary style. It is very likely that most additions to this page are worthy of, or already have, articles of their own dedicated to the topic. If you feel a particular subtopic that does not have its own article is worthy of it, then create one and link to it, Be Bold.
Specific technical history or development history belongs on the page of the technology concerned, not this page. For instance, development history specific to TCP/IP belongs on TCP-IP#Development. Again, this might mean the creation of new articles.
Please use the appropriate cite templates, and inline link to these cites where appropriate in the text. See Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Cite sources.
-- Barberio 12:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
This Is Not A Technical History. Specific technical issues, and detailed discussion of devlopment of the technologies (including 'competition' between different methodologies) belongs on articles specific to that technology. There are too many technologies developed for and involved with the current Global Internet for them to be included in a single article. Please either expand the pages for those technologies, or create them. -- Barberio 13:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
"Internet should only be capatalised when refering to the 'global' internet, which originates after NSFNet. " The above statement is incorrect with respect to "originates after NSFnet". Both CSNET and NSFNET supported users in multiple countries and were 'global'. The statement should, like all wikipedia statements, either be appropriately backed up by references or removed from the guidelines. 38.127.208.3 ( talk) 12:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC). The internet is the most useful thing on earth if no one figured out the way to make electricity we would .....DIED.....
While we all know Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore invented the internet along with inventing global warming, also in the 1990's, in fact the DARPANET was begun in 1968, when this note writer - wet willy sr - approved the DARPA contracts to use PDP8's to hook the first DARPANET up with contract let out of RADC (Rome Air Development Center) Griffis ARB, Rome, NY. : ))
Also missing the global OPARS network, hooking all the globe together in 1969, decades before you first show it, also approved by the CINCU, wet willy sr.
See also global OTH network, PAVEPAWS, Project Overlord, etc - all in the years 1968-69. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.159.228 ( talk) 08:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that there is too much focus on non-internet networks, which will have to be deleted to make space for what is missing. 62.121.101.201 23:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
As some of you may know, the first message ever sent over ARPANET was supposed to be 'LOGIN' but the network crashed after the 'O.' Perhaps this interesting bit could be included in a 'Facts' or a 'Trivia' section. -> http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~lk/LK/Inet/1stmesg.html
FLAW 360: 360 being the magic scale of pi,; there is that the number of the internet is 742 where mainframes are the majority of concern: in this way i found that 'video' takes up the most memory and it "slows" the mainframe into 247 equations, : in this way a sort of juke box which can equate the 290r of video footage set to 390 might help [come] there is that this is where they are trying to Hatch Mianframes with Servers over various attitudes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.235.232 ( talk) 10:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We need more information on the spread of the Internet over Africa and Asia.
At the moment, the only information I have on Africa is a single paper from 1991, when X.25 IPSS and 2400 baud modem UUCP links were still in use. [1]
I'd don't have any on South America, Asia and Easten Europe. -- Barberio 16:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Lots of information added on Asia now. Still need some info on Eastern Europe and South Africa, but not found much. -- Barberio 18:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed the notes list from a bullet list to a numbered list, because that is much easier to search. But the list-numbers do not correspond with the note-numbers. Are we missing a note/reference? ~ 8 dec 2005, 16:08 CET
"The goal of the researchers creating the Internet was to create a network of networks" --Ronda Hauben, "The Internet: On its International Origins and Collaborative Vision (A Work In Progress)", cited in the Notes. -- Ancheta Wis 10:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There might be mention of the multiple architectures extant, such as Alohanet, which existed during the time when Bulletin Boards (BBSs) were the only conception that was user-oriented.
The competition of ideas, like the 7-layer protocol, which was supplanted by the simpler TCP/IP 4-layer stack, does not seem to be mentioned. There does not seem to be the sense that there could (and probably will) be other implementations. -- Ancheta Wis 10:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
First, we need to make sure that we're doing a history of the Internet, and wikipedia's [Internet] article reads "The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to serve billions of users worldwide. " Now it is true that common use of the term also include World Wide Web, and a redirection pointer at the top for History of the World Wide Web is also in order. In any case, the article contains much cruft about the history of computing as opposed to networks / packet networking that needs to be struck out.
63.170.69.237 ( talk) 04:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The ITU (and its predecessors) insisted on the use of X.25 and other approved protocols like X.400 and X.500, which impeded interoperability with other networks. Where is this mentioned? -- Ancheta Wis 10:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Where is the mention of the use of the RFC as a dodge to circumvent the elaborate approval mechanisms in use by the Bell System and the ITU? -- Ancheta Wis 10:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
We need a replacement for the Leonard Kleinrock & IMP image that is acceptable under Wikipedia:Image use policy. -- Barberio 10:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The picture of "The first World Wide Web Server" shows a CRT display and an open manual with paper pages. It looks like the server required a human operator to look up directions for each operation. Is this unintentional, or a subtle joke slipped in by a sly editor? -- Blainster 18:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops, OK. I didn't notice the posted info. Unfortunately many of the small sized images in Wiki articles are not well lighted. The dark system unit doesn't show up very well. If someone could pop into the museum for an angled shot with a brighter flash, it would help. -- Blainster 23:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that this was not a deliberate deselection of p2p when I made the re-write. I chose WWW and Email as the applications to mention because there are almost literaly the defining applications of the current Internet.
While p2p is an important technology, the wide spread social implications of it are still yet to be seen. Unlike the WWW, and e-mail, we have not yet seen how p2p is going to change social and economic functions, if at all. There are indications that it will, but crystal balls are not a subject for a history article. I think it is overly tempting to add p2p because it is the 'big name of the time'. However, as a history article, we should fight this.
Now, I use p2p applications every day, but I don't think they have yet penetrated global society in the way email and the WWW have. It would probably be a mistake to atempt to mention every recordable use or application on the internet. That way ends up with turning the article into a list. There is already such a list at List of Internet topics
So I'm going to propose a guideline. 'Historicaly notable applications or uses of the Internet should have had impact to the majority of internet users or fundamental implication in society at the time of their use'
-- Barberio 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
History of the Internet is an article likely to get searches from many non-technical people. Without any Use and Culture section, there is nothing in the article they will understand. There is no other single article which covers the same topic, either. The history of the World Wide Web is NOT the History of the Internet. The WWW was only one of a number of competing methodologies until after the introduction of Mosaic. In 1994, most people were using Gopher, and had scarcely heard of the WWW, or of WAIS. An article which eliminates all mention of those competing Internet systems does not serve its readers. -- CGMullin 21:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I cannot verify this and it seems to conflict with some other assertions. ( This indicates only 390,000 documents in 1994.) Can someone give a cite?
Also, claiming Lycos as the first search engine is dubious (Previous link only states "one of the earliest search engines", EiNet perhaps has a claim, and WAIS also bears mention.) Any better authorities on that? KWH 03:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been checking around in some related articles, notably the Search engine article, and also the WAIS, Archie search engine, and Gopher protocol articles, and have made some corrections here. Lycos was FAR from the first search engine, it was just the first one to make a lot of money for its creators. CGMullin 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
WebCrawler is the first crawler based search engine, that might be worth a sentence or two.-- Scorpion451 05:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that relevant words should be wikilinked only in their first appearence within any one article. And yet a lot of words are annoyingly linked all over the place, the main culprits being ARPANET, X.25 and TCP/IP.
Or am I making this up? PizzaMargherita 21:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[Do not link] Words that have been linked earlier in the article. This advice follows the standard practice of defining or explaining a term, or spelling out an acronym, on its first occurrence in a text and not subsequently.
Also, the article makes use of both "U.S." and "US" as adjectives. This is not only inconsistent and non-standard, but also unnecessary, since "American" would be unambiguous and accepted by both American English and Commonwealth English speakers. PizzaMargherita 21:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Since the guideline was changed without consensus, it's been restored, and I'll go about restoring links in the page as apropriate. -- Barberio 08:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Please please stop putting sentence clauses into brackets. This is not proper practice. This is a good use of the bracket - Johnston Kingly (86) won the shuffleboard cup. - while this is not - Johnston Kingly (The 86 year old plumber) won the shuffleboard cup. -- Barberio 08:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Your example is slightly ironic in that is contradicts proper grammar not to have at least some sort of sentance clause explaining the apparently arbitrary number in parenthesis. page 86? Entry 86? Score at shuffleboard 86(very impressive!)-- Scorpion451 05:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Barberio, please stop reverting perfectly valid edits ( [2], [3]) with no justification. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 08:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please drop one sentence in the article explaining briefly the relationship between UUCP and Usenet? I don't think it's clear at the moment. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 08:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we want to go into UUCP and Usenet's links too closely here, assoiating the two, and directing attention to their articles is enough. We want to keep this in Summary Style. -- Barberio 10:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In "Email and Usenet—The growth of the text forum", is "forum" a typo for "form"? Either way, what does it mean? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The definition you quote is missing a key element, the word "public". Since Roman times, fora have been public places of discussion, which email in general is not.
Exactly because the article does not mention internet forums, the issue of ambiguity is not irrelevant. I propose we get rid of the whole "The growth of the text forum" phrase.
I challenge you to apply this made-up hyphen grammatical rule of yours to web-related WP articles and see how far you get. Come on, start with internet forum. PizzaMargherita 06:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I made some edits. It's still pretty choppy, though, and the idea behind the title--which I support--doesn't really come through. The problem as I see it is not the title, but the fact that it is implicitly arguing that the significance of email and Usenet was that they provided a forum (and by extension created a community)--and then the section text doesn't really pay off on that. It's just a bunch of facts without any real evaluation of their significance. · rodii · 02:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
So anyway, how is it the growth of "the" text forum? Surely email (which I must insist is not a forum) and usenet would make at least two separate fora, right? PizzaMargherita 16:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've seen and read through a copy of Raymond S. Rodgers' obscure 1971 booklet Man in the Telesphere, which predicted an Internet-like network that would link computers and people globally, and which used the word "web" to describe this system. But should he and his booklet be mentioned in this article? I'm unsure that merely because someone predicted something makes them worthy of mention, particularly if few people listened to the prediction. On the other hand, it is an interesting bit of trivia, at the very least. Here's a link to a rather defensive web site about the topic THE 1971 PREDICTION OF THE "WEB" / TELESPHERE-- Skb8721 15:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
As BBN developed the first IMP and ran the ARPANET initially, there should be a mention of this.
I too find this odd. They could also be considered part of the initial node along with UCLA and SRI, albeit for maintenance and monitoring purposes. A fine book that includes BBN's part in the development of ARPANET is Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet by Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon. Yasgur ( talk) 03:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the article deal with ARPANET and it's development. As far as the book being mis-titled, I think most sources agree that the ARPANET was the main origin of the Internet. [6] [7] Yasgur ( talk) 21:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
CSNET was as early as ARPANEt, and it was definitely the Internet. If there's going to be references to ARPANET and CSNET, then BBN should be included in the article. (It's interesting that by the end of the article it's clear the the only organization with clear records of the earliest days of the Internet was BBN) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.116.217 ( talk) 10:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The article discusses the role of Windows 95 in the mainstreaming of the Internet, but that's not how I remember it at least. To my mind the first big step that drew media attention to the Internet and drove the expansion of the dial-up ISPs that made Internet access possible for mere mortals was the Mosaic web browser. Note that this is also how Internet tells it. — ciphergoth 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The only cite for this is pretty sloppy looking. It appears to be notes from a lecture, and is riddled with formatting and context mistakes. The actual part of it refering to 1000% increase says "Claims were often made of a doubling every three or four months which corresponds to an annual growth rate of 1000%. Such growth rates did exist did hold during 1995 and 1996. However, growth slowed down to about 100% during 1997, which is in line to the average growth rate of 100% a year for the entire 30-year history of the internet.", which seems to be saying the records of growth are patchy, and that some measures claimed a doubling over periods of three months. This is then sloppily extrapolated to a "1000%" yearly increase. I don't think this is a clear cite of a growth spurt in 1995. -- Barberio 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone find any information about the battle over commercialization that happend in the early 90s. I know there was a court case over one of the first commercial webiste and the Universities banned it. The court sided with the website. I remember this but can find no mention of it on the internet now.
MindStalker
20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)MindStalker
I do not think this article should be tagged. The Interent was created from the ARPANET and for years only existed in the USA being funded later by the National Science Foundation. As such the world view of this article is correct since the article itself correctly describes the history on the world view. Because the Internet was created in the USA and with funds from the NSF does not mean it is not correctly showing the world view.
Please reply to me regarding this on my talk page. I plan to begin work on this article shortly and will remove this tag if there are no objections. I am currently looking at and correcting supporting documents before I begin. -- akc9000 ( talk • contribs • count) 13:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I will preface with this statement: the ARPANET was the first attempt at an internet-like network. I am not trying to rewrite history. However, I belive that it is important to note in the article at least briefly that the first proof of concept for the idea came from the linking of radar stations though phone line connections. This was a project in the United States Air Force in the mid-1960's. It only passed very simple messages and was, as I said, only a proof of concept before the full investment of the military into the ARPANET. It is however, a notable and little known point in the timeline of the internet, and deserves at least a brief mention.-- Scorpion451 05:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've come accross this [8] on the BBC News website, published today. I don't know if it will be of help but thought might as well give you the link and see. Regards, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this ridiculously out of scale drawing. Not only is it wrong, at first glance it looks like the areas of the boxes represent the actual ip address space. This is nothing short of deceptive. Right now this drawing offers nothing in the way of enlightenment and only serves to confuse. If we are to draw an accurate representation of the Ip address space, we would need to use a box that measures 2.8*10^14 pixels on each side. One pixel of that would be the IPv4 address space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.164.46 ( talk) 03:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to have made some odd edits to the top of the article, that left it in a very confused state. Including obliterating the lead, and replacing it with the top paragraph which made no sense as a lead, and then messing up the formatting. I assume this was the result of some bad fixes to repair vandal edits. Let's try to take a bit more care? -- Barberio ( talk) 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Having had to repair some considerable damage to the article, including blanked out sections and other vandal-edits that had been left uncorrected in this article since October, I'm even more disillusioned about Wikipedia than I was when I suspended my editing. -- Barberio ( talk) 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
the article says
In October 1962, Licklider was appointed head of the United States Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, now known as DARPA, within the information processing office. There he formed an informal group within DARPA to further computer research. As part of the information processing office's role, three network terminals had been installed: one for System Development Corporation in Santa Monica, one for Project Genie at the University of California, Berkeley and one for the Multics project SHOPPING at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
I was at MIT and worked at Project MAC in the 60s and have not heard of "Project SHOPPING." Multics was not begun until 1964-65. The idea of "network terminals" being installed at DARPA is misleading, since there was no network other than the PSTN... and calling up one of these systems to use it was an adventure in tie lines and long distance operators.
I think the references to "project SHOPPING" and Multics should be removed or supported with better evidence and dates.
regards, tom (editor multicians.org)
Thvv ( talk) 00:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why there is a paragraph on the WWW in an article on the Internet but it is out of place, has no sources and links to the actual internet article. Not to mention it might help perpertrate the idea that the web = the internet. If anyone has no objections i am going to delete it. DyloniusFunk ( talk) 22:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Richard Robins ( talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Seems like a good suggestion. I feel the History of the Internet page tries to cover far too much information in a limited space. There could be reference to key ideas and new pages created to cover these topics. The article ignores critical developments in the 1980s, which set the stage for rapid growth in the 1990s. There's no mention of the U.S. Government's privatization of the Internet in the early 90s that opened usage up.
You two are incompetent, the Web is one of the most important and famous systems carried by the Internet. Of course it should be there. 209.148.247.171 ( talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"best internet"(or Verio) is listed as opening commercial access to the west coast in 1986, but this is obviously not true. Even the link provided by the editor shows the date to be 1996 1 -- Zsieg ( talk) 00:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The citation provided by the editor doesn't claim that they were the first commercial dial-up west coast ISP in 1996, but the editor does. Further, it is trivial to show that Earthlink predates them in 1995 and if memory serves, other dial-up providers existed locally prior to that. 173.50.179.45 ( talk) 19:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The current state of this article is deplorable. Whoever wrote it is not only ignorant of the Internet but also is ignorant in general about the nature of scientific discovery and creation.
The Internet is an information highway, not a protocol. Whoever does not understand what information scientifically is should go and read up on it not waste our time here with childish amateur gossip. -- 209.148.247.171 ( talk) 05:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The main page seems impervious to editing so I place my suggested change here.
Early in the article, a reference is made to the internet being accessed by scientists on all 7 continents (obviously, including Antarctica).
Under the continent-by-continent section, this sentence seems quite jarring: The Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), headquartered in Australia, manages IP address allocation for the continent.
I suggest the sentence be revised to end: "...for the vast region including its two continents."
As geographic background, the Asia-Pacific region includes roughly half of the world's surface, so the use of "vast" may be appropriate.
thanks Ertdfgcvb ( talk) 10:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Further to my comment an hour ago, I suggest that the references to North America under the "Worldwide Online Population Forecast" subheading be clarified. North America is traditionally defined as the mainland from Alaska and Canada in the north down to include Panama in the south, plus the Caribbean islands. A more recent, and confusing, use of the NA term especially popular in business matters, uses NA as meaning only the USA plus Canada. For instance, the telephone country code 001 is often referred to as North America when it is, in fact, not the full continent.
I suspect that this latter two-nation definition is the one used in this article. If so, I suggest that a notation be added after the first use of the term "North America", such as "(defined as the USA plus Canada)" or perhaps "restricted to".
So, the fundamental question is whether Mexico, the six states of Central America, and the Caribbean are included in the statistics cited. If not, NA should be clearly defined.
Statistics cited with extreme precision, such as "1.1%", become meaningless if they apply to an area that is vague, misleading or uncertain.
Thanks Ertdfgcvb ( talk) 11:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In order to uphold the quality of
Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the
GA criteria as part of the
GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of
October 16,
2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from
WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at
WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at
WP:GAR.
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the last good version of this page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_the_Internet&oldid=257453748
Could someone please look at the diff and correct the changes. I'm still new to this so I don't feel comfortable changing the article myself.
Thanks.
192.88.212.43 ( talk) 17:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I just listened to a lecture where the speaker insisted a lot on the "End-to-end principle", it reminded me of a video I saw earlier:
[ [10]]
at 5:30, they explain that this was the idea of a project that is not mentionned in your article: Cyclades, by an institute called Inria. Is this relelvant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.49.98 ( talk) 01:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
"The history of the Internet began with the ARPANET and connected mainframe computers on dedicated connections. The second stage involved adding desktop PCs which connected through telephone wires. The third stage was adding wireless connections to laptop computers. And currently the Internet is evolving to allow mobile phone"
That's it? Not even a full stop on the end? This is garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.47.139 ( talk) 15:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Both the "Main developments in Internet history" and the "Before the Internet" sections say
The research led to the development of several packet-switched networking solutions in the late 1960s and 1970s,[1] including ARPANET and the X.25 protocols. Additionally, public access and hobbyist networking systems grew in popularity, including unix-to-unix copy (UUCP) and FidoNet. They were however still disjointed separate networks, served only by limited gateways between networks. This led to the application of packet switching to develop a protocol for inter-networking, where multiple different networks could be joined together into a super-framework of networks. By defining a simple common network system, the Internet protocol suite, the concept of the network could be separated from its physical implementation. This spread of inter-network began to form into the idea of a global inter-network that would be called 'The Internet', and this began to quickly spread as existing networks were converted to become compatible with this. This spread quickly across the advanced telecommunication networks of the western world, and then began to penetrate into the rest of the world as it became the de-facto international standard and global network. However, the disparity of growth led to a digital divide that is still a concern today.
That should either be removed or rewritten from/in one of the sections. Urdna ( talk) 16:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
My edit comment got truncated, so here's the full version. Notice all the boxes labelled "Other gateway"? Those are all non-BBN routers. (Many were Fuzzballs, if you remember them.) So that new caption is incorrect.
And thanks for reminding me why I quit Wikipedia. Noel (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Over time, a lot of uncited material has been added to the article, which has resulted in the loss of the 'good article' mark. We need to go through the article to first mark out uncited claims with {{ fact}} to give citation needed to flag where we need to find a cite. Some current website cites have also been reported to no longer be available, so a check over current cites is needed. -- Barberio ( talk) 14:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
These texts were used as references in the creation of the History of the Internet article. However, they were added to the article at a time when there was no accepted system of inline citation, and there is no link between the references and what they are cited to support. This leaves some parts of the article apparently uncited, but supposedly supported by these texts.
Can someone with these texts please read over the article, and identify the sections and statements that are supported by these texts.
Thanks in advance. -- Barberio ( talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The orirgins of the internet and the world wide web are unusual in the history of commerical media. What makes them unusual and what qualities does that impact to the media???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.44.120 ( talk) 03:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Do your own homework, bucko. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.44.254.86 (
talk)
16:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I recently added a chapter (Precursors and early dev.) in that book, but I don't know if I got everything, or if I gave some things undue prominence compared to others. Feedback? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I counted 15 vandalism edits since October 1st, most of them by IPs. As a result I've semiprotected the article. Please let me know if anyone disagrees. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This article gives way too much coverage to other networks (fido) and copy utilities (UUCP) and way too little to ARPANET. The internet is directly based on ARPANET, but not on FIDO or UUCP. It's making the others seem just as important, when they are not. The internet would not exist without ARPANET. It would exist without FIDO or UUCP, etc. 75.25.101.110 ( talk) 03:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The introduction here seems a little too big for a Wikipedia article. Can it be shortened in any way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rredwell ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Would someone like to correct the spelling of the word "lose" (as in: ... temporarily 'lose' contact because they move ... ) in the following paragraph?:
Communication with spacecraft beyond earth orbit has traditionally been over point-to-point links through the Deep Space Network. Each such data link must be manually scheduled and configured. In the late 1990s NASA and Google began working on a new network protocol, Delay-tolerant networking (DTN) which automates this process, allows networking of spaceborn transmission nodes, and takes the fact into account that spacecraft can temporarily loose - PLEASE CHANGE TO LOSE - contact because they move behind the Moon or planets, or because space "weather" disrupts the connection. Under such conditions, DTN retransmits data packages instead of dropping them, as the standard TCP/IP internet protocol does. NASA conducted the first field test of what it calls the "deep space internet" in November 2008.[31]
There's quite a succinct explanation of the definitions and the difference between lose and loose on the following web page: http://www.ross.net/notes/loose.shtml
Thanks!
62.31.226.48 (
talk)
04:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
"IPTO" is mentioned several times in the text, but is neither linked nor spelled out. It should link to Information Processing Techniques Office. 72.208.145.184 ( talk) 22:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Done --
Kvng (
talk)
16:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, the article says, "Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1994 when the National Science Foundation (NSF) developed the Computer Science Network (CSNET) and again in 1986 when NSFNET provided access to supercomputer sites in the United States from research and education organizations." It doesn't make sense that something happened "in 1994" "and again in 1986."
According to the article on the [ Science Network (CSNET)], it was "developed starting in the late 1970s" and "was funded by the National Science Foundation for an initial three-year period from 1981 to 1984." So perhaps the article should be changed to read:
"Access to the ARPANET was expanded in the early 1980s when the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the Computer Science Network (CSNET) and again in 1986 when NSFNET provided access to supercomputer sites in the United States from research and education organizations."
-- Sandy Schuman ( talk) 17:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the search engine section is unreferenced (after the first sentence) and seems to be promotion for Bing. Ryanb808 ( talk) 21:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Seopfer ( talk) 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
What effect did the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 have on the creation of the Internet? Did it help the Internet come into being? Did it promote use of the Internet by private individuals, research institutions, or the US government? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 19:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I seem to remember the average person (in my country) wasn't able to get onto the internet until around 1992 or so... before then the only people with access were in universities. Why not have a section on the social aspect of the history of the internet? Frankly, the internet's major importance is a social phenomenon, and it'd be nice to have something about that in this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 01:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is missing the ENTIRE 1990's. The whole point of an internet history article to me is how today's major websites: yahoo, google, wikipedia, myspace, etc, came about. The history of search engines, of memes, of filesharing, of everything in the whole 1990-2010 span which is ABSENT from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.217.83 ( talk) 03:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Please make 'Peter Kirstein' (one occurrence) link to the Peter T. Kirstein page. Why isn't this article editable so that I could do it myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.43.184 ( talk) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-- Not quite correct. These parameter spaces (DNS, IP) are also under the IETF, but per RFC2860, ICANN coordinates policy development in these spaces.
-- This only notes the DNS transition; IP responsibility was delegated to RIPE, then APNIC, then by NSF from the above INTERNIC to ARIN, then after ICANN LACNIC and Afrinic RIRs were formed. [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.252.200 ( talk) 14:54, 30 March 2012
Why was the following content deleted by SudoGhost at 23:34 on 28 June 2011 with the comment "Reverted to revision 436773896 by Ohnoitsjamie: Please use talk page before restoring this material.."?
Jeff Ogden ( talk) 04:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Replying to Jeff Ogden and others concerned: I just deleted that section as the claim is not supported by the source cited. Claim: "It is estimated that in 1993 the Internet carried only 1% of the information flowing through two-way telecommunication. By 2000 this figure had grown to 51%, and by 2007 more than 97% of all telecommunicated information was carried over the Internet. [1]"
The table of contents for the cited paper shows the cited pages have to do w/ storage, and don't concern the given stats: C Storage ............................................................................. 50 C.2 Films for cinema and TV ........................................................................ 58 C.2.2 Cinematographic Films: performance ......................................................... 60 C.2.3 TV Films and TV episodes: performance ...................................................... 62 C.2.4 Content compression ............................................................................ 64 C.3 Analog Photography ............................................................................. 64 C.3.1 Negatives: performance ........................................................................ 64 C.3.2 Printed photos: performance .................................................................. 65
Given the subject matter of the 254 pg paper, the info may be in it somewhere, but I couldn't find it by searching. Hopefully some expert can clear this up, as I want to know. According to the Global Information Industry Center at the University of California, San Diego, of all Bytes received by consumers, 17 times as many are received via TV compared with the Internet. And when measured in hours, TV is more than double than the Internet, and approaching double when measured in words. hmi.ucsd.edu/pdf/HMI_2009_ConsumerReport_Dec9_2009.pdf (p. 27) Gorkelobb ( talk) 01:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
"In 1982 the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced. Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1981…."
The Network Control Protocol (NCP) should be introduced earlier than where it as cited as Jon Postel's RFC. NCP needs to be mentioned in the History of the Internet#ARPAnet section to make clear that a decade of experience passed before the advent of TCP. This is an effective feature which which filters out people who claim knowledge from that period of time. 64.9.237.38 ( talk) 21:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The DNS is only really mentioned in passing, yet it is a significant factor that determines the functionality and evolution of the Net, and much more relevant to the Internet per se that "search engines", which are merely applications. I don't have time to address this, but it seems that it some text should be inserted. Nexus501 ( talk) 21:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Was there such a browser? Have noticed a peremptory violation out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.10.57.86 ( talk) 05:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"ICANA begins accepting applications for new generic top-level domain names" should be corrected to "ICANN begins accepting applications for new generic top-level domain names"
38.101.255.135 ( talk) 05:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)