Talk:World Wide Web: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Jitse Niesen
m (remove vertical bar from template argument)
imported>Subpagination Bot
m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details))
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                abc = World Wide Web
|                cat1 = Computers
|                cat2 =
|                cat3 =
|          cat_check = n
|              status = 2
|        underlinked = n
|            cleanup = y
|                  by = [[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 17:15, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
}}


==Technical details==
==Technical details==

Revision as of 09:31, 16 November 2007

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Video [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A global collection of information presented in the form of documents hosted on networked computers and available to the public. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Computers [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

Technical details

I have re-written the "How the web works" section to be a more understandable high-level description. I will put the technical details about the DNS, TCP/IP, HTML, CSS, etc back into the article some time soon. Not quite sure where they should go, maybe a sub-category under "how the web works", but I just thought it was important to give a simple description first rather than throwing a whole lot of terminology at the reader.--Konstantin Tchernov 07:36, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I have to agree with you on that decision. Personally, I think a lot of the technical stuff can go into the separate articles, with only a brief discussion here about what they do. If this is to be targetted for a non-CS-majoring college freshman, they just need to know what CSS, HTML, DNS, and HTTP are. They don't need to know POST vs. GET or user agents. --ZachPruckowski 11:51, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Major problems

What I see that is majorly wrong here (just a very brief quick list):

  1. Dreadful structure - order of sections is ridiculous
  2. No in-line citations and hardly any references
  3. Poor prose, does not flow. Some inconsistent writing style. Sometimes boring and technical sometimes full of unnecessary flowery words like "dispersed around the planet in time and space"
  4. The "basic terms" section is rather strange, I think if needed these terms should be defined in other places as they are mentioned.--Konstantin Tchernov 08:21, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Question: would a better article result more quickly if you were to (1) blank the article, and then (2) write a new one that lacks the above enumerated problems, while using the WP article (linked handily from our own article) as a rough guide? I ask out of curiosity. I know that's how I feel about the Philosophy article... --Larry Sanger 08:51, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I am not sure. Personally, that's what I did with the "How it works" section. Very tempting to blank some of these other sections too. But it is a lot of work rewriting them from scratch - I am not sure that I personally have the time/motivation for that.--Konstantin Tchernov 05:52, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Well, whatever works best for you. You can begin with the WP article if you wish, and you can start with a blank section or a blank article if you wish! --Larry Sanger 11:02, 18 January 2007 (CST)

I'm cleaning on this

Hi yall. I'm tearing into this, deleting portions and trying to achieve some kind of actual focus. The legacy of stuff brought from Wikipedia is, in my opinion, "too much detail" and "not enough vision". I think we should describe the web here--what it is, and what it's underlying technology is, but it's technology should not be explained here--technology things should go into their own separate articles. Thus I added links to the standards but removed areas that got into trying to tell what the standards do in a nuts and bolts kind of way.Pat Palmer 16:00, 4 April 2007 (CDT)