Talk:Net neutrality

Net neutrality by country source and potential COI

Wikipedia has policies against self-promotion as described at WP:COI. In the edit

• special:diff/1071564145/1071652801

new user Thgarrett added a new academic article as a citation to an unsourced statement. This is that users first and only edit. The lead author of that paper is Thiago Garrett, which is likely that same user. Experienced article reviewer MrOllie reverted the edit at

• special:diff/1071652801/1071653370

because of self-promotion.

I get the fear, because in 999 out of 1000 cases, people who cite their own articles are doing so to spam citations in places where they do not fit. In this case it seems to fit. I do not regret MrOllie's revert because we have so few academic editors, but I think we are good here. I am reverting the revert pending discussion.

The citation works in this case, right? Thgarrett it would be helpful if you cite your own articles in the future if you added a bit of description about yourself to your userpage. Wikipedia is under constant attack and misconduct and briefly identifying your editing interests helps. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed I'm the first author of that paper. I apologize for the inconvenient, I'll pay attention to the rules next time. About the citation, I planned on adding a paragraph (and the reference to the paper) to the page Net_neutrality_by_country, since I believe it is highly relevant for that particular page. However, I'm not sure this would adhere with the COI rules. I would appreciate any feedback. Thgarrett (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The recommended practice is to propose the change on the article's talk page instead of making it yourself when you have a COI. If it is a low traffic page, you can draw attention by using the {{requestedit}} template (click on the link for instructions). - MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

is "poor people" really an appropriate term to describe people who may not be able to afford internet access??

Currently in the first section of the article it says "Opponents of net neutrality argue that it reduces investment, deters competition, increases taxes, imposes unnecessary regulations, prevents the Internet from being accessible to poor people, prevents Internet traffic from being allocated to the most needed users, that large Internet providers already have a performance advantage over smaller providers, and that there is already significant competition among Internet providers with few competitive issues."

Is "poor people" an appropriate term. Should there be any changes to the article to make it sound less offensive to some people? Blindroses (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

European Union missing in content

The Open Internet Regulations in EU are highly relevant for this page and should be described and referred to. [1]https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/open-internet/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-open-internet-rules-in-the-eu 192.176.1.79 (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Major cleanup of article

Will be summarizing a lot of content (putting some context in the citations) and deleting unreliable sources. Any help/commentary welcome

Superb Owl (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The section on "Supporter argue vs. critics argue" is weak and doesn't have citations. It reads more like "here's what I think its supporters argue vs. critics argue." There are plenty of good sources in which people advocate for and against net neutrality and I think those could be cited here. Isafic (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I have so far worked this article through Net neutrality § End-to-end principle as part of my User:Kvng/RTH project. I started 15 May 2023‎ so, slow going. Help would be appreciated as long as your idea of cleanup is not delete all unsourced material. ~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to help with this article. My feeling is that for unsourced claims, especially under the arguments for/against sections, it would be prudent to first search for a source that may back the claim listed. If no such source can be found, the point can be removed, in my opinion. I agree with Kvng that we should not just delete all unsourced material, but there are certainly points in this article that don't hold up.

Isafic (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If you can produce some better sourced material to replace the unsourced, you're welcome to toss the unsourced without much analysis. It's the, "this is shite and needs to go" that can be unproductive. ~Kvng (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)