Talk:Internet/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Missing citations

WildStar has added a {{RefImprove}} tag to the top of the article justified by 5 open inline {{Citation needed}} notes in the article. I personally don't think the issues are serious enough to merit double-tagging but if there is consensus that they are, we need to also consider demoting the article to C-class. ~Kvng (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Kvng - I found a reference for one of the citations needed (although I'm now trying to find a better one). I don't have cycles today, but I will try another day to see if I can find some for the others. - Dyork (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the tag is not in any way appropriate for an article that has well over a hundred refs. GliderMaven (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree the tag is unwarranted. As per Wikipedia:Responsible tagging#Additional references needed tag (refimprove):

The talk page ought to give some kind of idea as to what additional references would be helpful. For example, "It would be nice to use references from journals other than the Petorian Journal of Medicine." If you have the time, you should also flag with citation needed tags one or two statements not supported by the references already in the article.

No major unresolved issues have been tagged in the article or raised on Talk regarding inaccurate or controversial claims in the article. Whizz40 (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is your major unresolved issue: this article contains dozens or possibly hundreds of uncited claims. The fact that only five of them have been tagged inline with CN tags doesn't change that.

The Governance, Infrastructure, ISP, Applications and services, and Social impact sections have numerous paragraphs that are completely uncited. I'm talking thousands of words here that are missing citations. It's very bad. Popcornfud (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Then tag those sections; and ONLY those sections!!! GliderMaven (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to remove the top tag and individually put tags on all the problem sections missing citations I don't oppose that. Popcornfud (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It feels more C-class. The overwhelming majority of the numerous classifications are C class. I dropped the business ratings to C class, and the wiki software has now deemed it C-class. I am opposed to C-class articles with over a hundred and fifty refs having a top note. GliderMaven (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the *quantity* of missing references, not the *ratio*.

You could have an article with 300 references but 50 uncited claims and it would not make the number of uncited claims less problematic or less deserving of attention. It would also not make the statement "This article needs additional citations for verification" any less true.

The tag should stay until these citations are provided or the uncited claims are removed. That's what the tag is supposed to be for. Popcornfud (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Are we supposed to add top tags to virtually all C-class articles, because that's by far the most common defect??? Who died and made you think you are in charge of the article anyway? GliderMaven (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Which argument are you making here exactly? Are you pointing out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Are you accusing me of WP:OWNing this article? Or are you, as you suggested your edit summary when posting that reply, arguing that the tags are counter-effective generally (in which case your argument isn't with me but with whether we use tags at all)? Popcornfud (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The article can certainly be improved by adding more inline references, we all seem to agree on that. As mentioned above, some sections are already well-referenced, while others are not; the latter is clearly the focus of this discussion. As discussed by GilderMaven and Popcornfund above, there seems to be consensus to tag the problem sections rather than the top of the article. There is not consensus for a tag at the top of the article given much of the article is well-referenced and it is a C-class article. Let's remove the tag from the top of the article, tag the relevant sections and sentences, and add inline sources to the article. Whizz40 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that solution, just so long as the numerous uncited claims remain tagged one way or another. Popcornfud (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, it's a bit of a crazy position that says all article defects should be tagged. The goal is to fix defects and it is not clear that detailed tagging contributes to that goal. Have some faith that editors are able to identify defects. It is potentially disruptive and confrontational to splatter an article with obvious tags. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not about "faith in editors". Tags aren't simply there to indicate to editors where stuff is missing. They're also there for readers - to show them when they need to use caution when reading an article. This is a classic use case for these tags and I don't think it's disruptive to vouch for their use. Popcornfud (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, can you point us to some policy or essay describing this "classic use case". It makes some sense but it's new to me. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I was confusing there. By "this is a classic use case" I mean this article is a classic use case for citation needed tags - it has dozens and dozens of uncited claims, entire sections that are not cited, etc. Hence my bafflement over why people want to remove it. The article is far less hindered by the tags than it is its glaring lack of citations. Popcornfud (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, to add, there are so many missing citations in this article I think it's better to just have the big "missing citations" tag at the top rather than tag everything in the article. I am not necessarily saying "all article defects should be tagged", only saying that if people would rather that than remove the top tag, well, that sounds like the hard way to do it to me but sure... Popcornfud (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, I think retreating to C-class was a good move based on the description in this discussion of referencing issues. I will have to look at the issues myself to assess whether I think a tag at the top of the article is warranted - that look will have to wait a few days. It sounds now like you never actually supported adding a bunch of tags to the body of the article and therefore don't want to pursue a case that this would benefit readers. ~Kvng (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this. "It sounds now like you never actually supported adding a bunch of tags to the body of the article"? No, I said (three times) that if someone wants to do that instead of removing the big tag at the top then I won't oppose it. I said this in response to another editor telling me "Then tag those sections; and ONLY those sections!!!" But imo the big tag we have right now is a better catch-all solution. Popcornfud (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I've had a chance to review Popcornfud's complaints about citations. Internet § Governance is a WP:SUMMARY of Internet governance. The Internet § Service tiers subsection in Internet § Infrastructure is uncited but I don't see a WP:V problem here because the section links to some well-developed articles that contain the missing citations. The refs are available if you follow some links and look around. This is an ongoing disagreement I have with Popcornfud. I don't see an urgency to copy refs from linked articles to support a summary in the article it is linked from. I do see some need for improvement in Internet § Social impact that I would expect to be flagged if someone were to take this to WP:GA. I think it is in an acceptable condition for a C or maybe even B-class article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Do summaries of other articles not still require citations? "The refs are available if you follow some links and look around" doesn't sound good enough to me. We cite claims in articles. Popcornfud (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I just spent some time making a good-faith attempt to try to copy the citations Knvg says (I think? am I interpreting this correctly?) are in the internet governance article to the Internet § Governance section. I thought I would try to set an example instead of just complaining about missing citations. I failed.

Many (all?) of the claims in the Internet § Governance section are basically copied from the internet government article. That’s a promising start, because if basically the same claims are made in both articles, the process of copying and pasting references should be straightforward. But - heavy sigh - those claims are not cited in the internet governance article either. It might be possible to find references for those in ‘’other’’ parts of the article - for example, there are sentences that mention the IETF which have references - but that requires editorial work to figure out if those references also cover the same information.

Let’s try the other example by verifying the very first claim made in this section: "Internet service providers (ISPs) establish the worldwide connectivity between individual networks at various levels of scope." How can I, as a reader, verify this? Let’s try going to the internet service providers page. I'm looking for the same claim (ideally identical), with a reference. The best I can find, after scanning it for a few minutes (are we asking readers to do more than that?), is this sentence: “An ISP typically serves as the access point or the gateway that provides a user, access to everything available on the Internet.” Is that the same claim? Eh... kind of? Maybe not. How does the "various levels of scope" come into it?

This clearly isn’t workable for a reader who is attempting to verify a claim on Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, Thanks for looking into this in detail. Clearly, there is work to be done. We've demoted the article to C-class. Is there anything else you think needs to be done before improvements are made? ~Kvng (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The only thing to do is to make improvements... by which I mean someone needs to get citin'. Popcornfud (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as, based on edits just now, clearly this is still a sore spot a couple of months later, I am going to commit to attempting to fill some of these missing citations over the next few days. There are so many of them (perhaps hundreds?) I can't promise to make major headway into them, but I will attempt to practice what I preach and improve the article. Popcornfud (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

So basically, you just think everyone in the world, except you, is exceptionally stupid, and you need to tell them that there needs to be more references, because otherwise they would never notice??? Yeah. No. GliderMaven (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not what I believe. Instead, think Wikipedia has this useful tag, which serves several useful purposes, and this article is a perfect use case for it. (And I didn't even add it, just in case anyone is assuming that.) Popcornfud (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Update File:Graph_depicting_share_of_the_population_using_the_Internet.png to conform to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions/Gradient_maps convetions

I noticed that this image in the users section, File:Graph_depicting_share_of_the_population_using_the_Internet.png, isn't respecting the conventions in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions/Gradient_maps so I've created an update version using the same data:

Internet Access Percentage by Country (2017)

I'm unable to edit this page, what are peoples thoughts on this, if positive could someone update it for me?

Georift (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Internet Access Percentage by Country (2017). See or edit source data.

Do we want to retain source information in the original (see below right). It looks like you've used the same 2017 data. Does anyone understand what the note currently associated with the image means: "Using image for now due to logspam generated by this graph. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T277903. Graph can be restored when underlying issue fixed." ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Carbon

That's something not even 1 word is about, the carbon emissions of internet.

--78.193.35.108 (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021

Change 'Khan' to 'Kahn' Sanjarcode (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Very little correction. Kahn is misspelled as 'Khan' once. Search the page for 'Khan' to view the mistake.

 Done Thanks for spotting that. Popcornfud (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meganschuessler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

cyber war /electronic war

this is barely mentioned data encryption engineering and logistic difficulties bi (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OneGoodNut (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by OneGoodNut (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)