Talk:History of the World Wide Web
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination. |
 |
To-do list for History of the World Wide Web: | edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
 |
History of the World Wide Web was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}} |
 |
History of the World Wide Web was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on March 26, 2006.
For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations. |
| This article is related to the WikiProject Early Web History. This Project is an attempt to create and link together articles about the early history of the World Wide Web. You can discuss the Project at its talk page, or see its main project page here. |
Contents |
[edit] Scope
I want to thank Wackymacs for an excellent start here, but I'm a bit concerned about the scope... we can pull in a lot of info on the evolution of browsers, search engines, etc... but that's primarily about technology. I have an interest in documenting the growth in sites and culture, from high-energy physicists to college kids and comp-sci students to everyone. It's quite possible that this article should split out into separate histories for History of World Wide Web technology and History of World Wide Web culture. Just a thought, open to suggestions... KWH 06:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that in an article like this one, we definitely want to have a lot on the culture of the Web. I also think it's important at the beginning of the article to make clear the point that when the Web was starting out, it was only one of a number of competing Internet interfaces. Until months after Mosaic was introduced, the WWW was just one of several interesting new technologies which were changing the earlier text-based Internet. I've started doing some work to clarify this. Just stating "The WWW is not the Internet." will not convey this to somebody who started using the Internet after the year 1995 or so, or to anyone else who never used Gopher,WAIS, Archie, or even FTP. CGMullin 20:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clarification on hypertext
I've just edited the second paragraph of the 1992—2000: Growth of the WWW section, since it seemed worthwhile clarifying that the Gopher protocol is, in fact, hypertext. It's just not the sort of hypertext we are used to these days. A single Gopher menu item might refer to anything from a few words to a huge collection of documents, as with the hypertext links we are used to. Furthermore, that menu item, or link, might look entirely different in two different Gophers, or in the *same Gopher* at two different times, or even in two places in the same Gopher at the same time. To me, it's that latter point which makes it clear that a Gopher menu item is in fact an early example of hypertext. CGMullin 20:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] After 1995? Brief history of important web sites or companies which played major role in developing the WWW?
I would like to see information on how the WWW developed after 1995, and the dot-com bubble, and how it became what is it today, and the role it has played in the world as it developed.
There should also be a brief history on important websites or companies which played an important role in the development of the WWW, such as MSN, Yahoo!, Google, Lycos, Excite, AOL and others.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] COTW rollover
When it comes time for the COTW rollover, the COTWnow edit was my March 27 edit. Sorry, it seems that I forgot to put the edit summary on the page. PDXblazers 16:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Web 2.0
Something about the current web 2.0 fad would go well in the last section, could someone add something about it? Htaccess 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some good points and some bad points
This article is a broad and factually accurate article and meets four of the first six requirements for a good article. However, there are still some things that need fixing. The grammar and spelling are excellent but the introduction could do with being a bit longer and does not need the sentence "Wikipedia's "History of the internet" article tells that story". Instead just place the link in the see also section at the bottom. The paragraph structure is poor because there are no less than sixteen one-and-two sentence paragraphs. If possible the entire text should be condensed to give larger 4-5 sentence paragraphs.
There are also too many sections and subsections - five sections and two little subsections to be precise excluding the introduction, see also, references and external links. Consider removing the two subsections from the 1992-1995 section and also consider merging the three sections covering 1996-present day. Avoid using the article title in section headings whenever possible, e.g. a section titled "1992-1995: Development'" is better because it is pretty obvious that it is going to be about the development of the WWW between 1992-1995.
Now for the painful bit, just one citation and just two reference texts alluded to. For an article of this length there should be at least five or six inline citations and a couple more reference texts or a couple more external links. Fix all these and you have a strong FA candidate. Green Giant 23:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Failed GA
Inadequate references. Good otherwise. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No mention of wikis?
History of the World Wide Web#2002-Present: The Web becomes ubiquitous mentions social networking websites, but says nothing about wikis. Given that wikis are undergoing something like an explosion in number, editorial participation, and browsing popularity, does anyone else think it would be appropriate to mention wikis in this section?
In particular, it might be good to mention how wikis are, to some extent, a reaction against the steadily increasing complexity of Web development tools and protocols. In the early days of the Web, the relative simplicity of HTML, and the ease of learning from existing Web pages with View | Page Source in a browser, allowed lots of people to make straightforwardly useful Web pages quickly. But then Web site development became more complex and specialized. The View | Page Source function on most large Web sites today has become about as understandable to non-experts as a core dump. Wikis are like a way to "give the Web back" to non-specialists, by putting Web page development once again in reach of people who can master a simple markup language. It will be interesting to see if wikis repeat the evolution toward complexity, and some future technology springs up to provide (temporary) simplicity again. --Teratornis 07:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
