295:— this is a perfectly good sentence, with a citation. Why take it out? The old version had a discussion of new compression algorithms and how they helped bring images and videos onto the web. Maybe it went into a bit too much detail, but it shouldn't have been removed wholesale. The dot-com bubble is only mentioned in passing in the new version. Crucial terms and companies like "blog", "Facebook", "Twitter", and "YouTube" are omitted entirely. And it's hard to read because of the choppy, single-sentence paragraphs and lack of narrative flow.
154:
449:
The old version of the article had references to a fictional story from 1909; the GPS coordinates to Tim
Berners-Lee's office; details about a picture of Les Horribles Cernettes; a compression algorithm from 1973; and a claim that someone named Robin Li actually invented Google's pagerank algorithm.
398:
So, to be honest, I'd also prefer previous version: history is better seen with some chronological order, not just 'Google', 'Microsoft', 'Mobile', etc. Old version was poorly sourced and not in a great shape, but you could read from the start and see what was developed when and where we are now. And
434:
I didn't say the old version was ideal, but at least it tried to be chronological. With current version you've got just a bunch of company names, some underdeveloped sections like 'Mobile', and totally confusing 'WHATWG'. So no, I didn't read the old article thoroughly, but I looked through the same
473:
The old version isn't even in chronological order. It mentions a 1946 story and then a 1909 story. (Why are these even mentioned?) The section labelled 1991–1995 contains details about an algorithm from 1973. One paragraph talks about EBay launching 1995 and the next talks about browsers from 1992.
194:
To be honest, I think it was better before. The sections were organized chronologically rather than topically, which makes more sense for a "History of" article. The rewritten version has lots of very short paragraphs and no images. The original version was perhaps too detailed in places and sorely
225:
Microsoft, the W3C, and the WHATWG were all moving in different directions. I don't think it would make sense to try to combine all of their stories in one section. It would be like trying to write a history of WW2 by combining the
European and Pacific theaters. —
392:'See also' after the section doesn't make sense in my view: why should I read about npm or Express.js after reading about Chrome? For somebody who's not software engineer these names wouldn't ring a bell, and npm is not mentioned anywhere in the text.
275:
The old article didn't mention major developments like SSL, CGI, JavaScript, XML, Chrome, or smartphones. On the other hand, it claimed that Robin Li invented Google's PageRank algorithm years before Google did. I don't understand why you prefer it.
272:- Why is 1995 listed twice? What happened in 2004? It's obvious to me that the author is trying neatly divide the history of the web into chronological sections like you want, but you can't do that. There's too many overlapping developments.
605:— If this is so then this subsection ("From Gopher to the WWW") is in the wrong place. But I'm not sure that's true, because the subsection itself says that Gopher was released in 1991, which would make it concurrent with the Web.
290:
I haven't done an exhaustive review of either version of the article. I'm just pointing out what to me is glaring about the new version. For one, I don't understand why you removed so much information.
529:— Safari (2003) and Firefox (2002) were a later generation than Netscape Navigator (1994) and Internet Explorer (1995), and Google Chrome was later still (2008), so this is chronologically misleading.
298:
I don't mean to be combative, but I honestly think you should revert and try to incorporate your new information — which is good and needed — into the existing structure of the article.
736:
Dot-com bubble deserves more coverage. What were some notable companies? Why did the bubble burst? How much effect did the bubble have on the development and popularization of the Web?
633:
These are my comments on the first part of the article. I also made some edits while reviewing, in particular to add clean-up tags to problematic references. You can view these edits
126:
122:
107:
99:
76:
417:
The old version contained false information, irrelevant information, and didn't even mention major milestones such as JavaScript, XML, or mobile phones.
719:
This section bounces between commercial (e.g., Netscape
Navigator, AOL) and technical (e.g., compression algorithms) topics; could be organized better.
537:— The first three sentences of this paragraph feel out of place as it is sandwiched between chronological accounts of the development of the Web.
527:
Competition between web browsers ensued which was dominated by
Netscape Navigator, Internet Explorer, Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera and Safari.
318:
The compression algorithms you're referring to are JPEG and MPEG. They were developed independently of the Web and shouldn't even be in there.
399:
in current version I would just be confused after reading it, without understanding timelines that are necessary to a 'History of' article.
514:
342:
240:
I would suggest having explicitly chronological top-level sections like before and dividing those into topical subsections as necessary.
891:
791:
Needless to say, this section needs serious expansion for recent occurrences, probably in a new section. Some topics it should cover:
115:
658:
Thank you Ruбlov. I started to address the points (indicated by strikout above) and will look at the remaining points in due course.
610:
I think this section is too detailed. I trimmed a bit myself; here are a few more sentences/paragraphs which I think can be deleted:
346:
69:
876:
861:
667:
652:
483:
468:
444:
429:
408:
364:
336:
313:
285:
255:
235:
214:
184:
573:
the universal document identifier (UDI), later known as uniform resource locator (URL) and uniform resource identifier (URI)
92:
395:'Mobile' section is also just a collection of sentences, not a history of anything 'Mobile'. 'WHATWG' is just confusing.
44:
856:
647:
359:
308:
250:
209:
62:
50:
459:
The old version was simply horrible. It's why I rewrote it. It's not possible to argue that it was better. —
840:
I think this section and the two following it should be integrated into the previous chronological sections.
634:
562:— It would be helpful here to briefly introduce what the Internet is and how it is different from the Web.
835:
This section repeats some information from the previous sections (e.g., the Line Mode
Browser, ViolaWWW).
435:
way I did with current version. Did you actually read my comment above, and not just the last sentence?
17:
386:
327:
I don't understand why you consider "Twitter" to be crucial, but not Apache, XML, or JavaScript. —
546:
479:
464:
425:
332:
281:
231:
180:
872:
663:
440:
404:
852:
820:
643:
355:
304:
246:
205:
456:
The new version starts with events in 1990 and ends at 2021. It's definitely chronological.
767:
589:— Not sure this should be included here as it covers much later territory chronologically.
173:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_the_World_Wide_Web&oldid=1067582315
784:
690:
885:
518:
475:
460:
421:
328:
277:
227:
176:
753:
Instagram was founded quite a while after
Friendster, MySpace, Facebook and YouTube.
575:— a URL is a type of URI, so for simplicity and clarity I'd omit the mention of URI.
868:
675:
659:
500:
436:
414:
No, you could not read the old version "from the start and see what was developed".
400:
195:
needed an update for recent history, but these problems could have been dealt with
161:
847:
804:
638:
350:
299:
241:
200:
766:
This section should mention how JavaScript made the development of interactive
581:
a key player in the extension of SGML ISO 8879:1986 to
Hypermedia within HyTime
814:
808:
780:
549:, citations are not required in the lead for facts that are cited in the body.
453:
You're complaining about odd details like the "See Also" line in one section.
730:
By August 2001, the directory model had begun to give way to search engines
220:
The article starts at 1990 and ends at 2021, so it's mostly chronological.
867:
Thank you Rublov. I am starting to make changes to address these points.
732:— Awkward because the previous sentence already mentioned search engines.
594:
587:
While the read-only goal was met, accessible authorship of web content...
798:
389:. F.e. in 'Chrome' each line starts with a year: in 2008, in 2009, ...
541:
The lead should have a lot more information about the 2000s and 2010s.
599:— Who developed ViolaWWW and why did it replace the other browsers?
776:
603:
All of those systems predated the invention of the World Wide Web
505:
Here are my comments on the version that you've been working on:
712:
Although the two terms are sometimes conflated in popular use...
725:
1995–2004: Commercialization, dot-com boom and bust, aftermath
148:
535:
Web pages were initially conceived as structured documents...
385:
The biggest issue I can see there that almost all article is
324:
That's the sort of writing you'd find in a high school essay.
703:
that foreshadowed or inspired today's most popular services
706:— This part does not appear to be supported by the source.
637:. I will review the rest of the article when I have time.
322:
The Web started to enter everyday use during 1993 to 1994.
293:
The Web started to enter everyday use during 1993 to 1994.
714:— This should probably be covered earlier in the article.
759:
The idea for
Knowledge was based on user-edited content.
172:
141:
134:
103:
474:
You can't possibly say that that makes more sense. —
775:
Also, the increasing use of encrypted connections (
787:(this is mentioned in the "Browser wars" section).
450:There is nothing about JavaScript, Apache, or XML.
693:published one of the first collections of PDFs...
623:Another example of media confusion occurred...
684:1993–1995: The Web goes public, early growth
680:Here's my review of the rest of the article:
171:Rewrote it extensively. It used to look like
70:
8:
701:many notable websites were already active
77:
63:
32:
560:As the Internet grew through the 1980s...
420:Did you actually read the old version? —
748:— This sentence is not integrated well.
513:"websites for everyday use" linking to
260:The old time divisions seem odd to me.
35:
758:
745:
741:2004–present: Ubiquity, Web 2.0, Web3
729:
711:
700:
688:
622:
615:
602:
592:
586:
580:
572:
559:
534:
526:
292:
761:— Another poorly integrated sentence.
7:
746:The video-sharing website YouTube...
515:List of websites founded before 1995
568:1989–1993: Origins and development
199:instead of rewriting the article.
24:
616:The first web page may be lost...
597:became the recommended browser...
797:Rise of streaming services like
152:
347:Knowledge:WikiProject Computing
1:
185:19:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
28:History of the World Wide Web
803:More coverage of web-based
794:Global expansion of the Web
494:Comments on revised version
908:
892:February 2022 peer reviews
877:07:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
862:14:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
668:15:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
653:13:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
484:12:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
469:12:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
445:11:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
430:11:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
409:09:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
349:to solicit more opinions.
365:17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
337:00:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
314:22:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
286:19:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
256:15:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
236:14:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
215:14:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
583:— Jargon-y and unclear.
813:Effect of widespread
164:discussion is closed.
18:Knowledge:Peer review
190:Comments from Rublov
381:Comments from Artem
817:usage on Web usage
689:In July 1993, the
860:
651:
363:
312:
254:
213:
169:
168:
142:Watch peer review
87:
86:
899:
850:
821:Internet culture
779:) which enabled
768:web applications
679:
641:
504:
353:
341:I have a posted
302:
244:
203:
156:
155:
149:
139:
130:
111:
79:
72:
65:
47:
33:
907:
906:
902:
901:
900:
898:
897:
896:
882:
881:
673:
498:
496:
383:
192:
153:
145:
120:
97:
91:
83:
51:Manual of Style
43:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
905:
903:
895:
894:
884:
883:
880:
879:
845:
844:
843:
842:
836:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
818:
811:
801:
795:
789:
785:online banking
772:
763:
755:
750:
739:
738:
737:
734:
723:
722:
721:
716:
708:
697:
691:Wharton School
671:
670:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
618:
606:
600:
593:Subsequently,
590:
584:
577:
566:
565:
564:
553:
552:
551:
545:Note that per
542:
539:
530:
523:
517:is a bit of a
495:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
471:
457:
454:
451:
418:
415:
382:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
325:
319:
296:
273:
222:
221:
191:
188:
167:
166:
157:
147:
146:
144:
90:
85:
84:
82:
81:
74:
67:
59:
56:
55:
54:
53:
48:
38:
37:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
904:
893:
890:
889:
887:
878:
874:
870:
866:
865:
864:
863:
858:
854:
849:
841:
838:
837:
834:
832:
831:
830:Browser wars
828:
822:
819:
816:
812:
810:
806:
802:
800:
796:
793:
792:
790:
788:
786:
782:
778:
773:
771:
769:
764:
762:
760:
756:
754:
751:
749:
747:
743:
742:
740:
735:
733:
731:
727:
726:
724:
720:
717:
715:
713:
709:
707:
705:
704:
698:
696:
694:
692:
686:
685:
683:
682:
681:
677:
669:
665:
661:
657:
656:
655:
654:
649:
645:
640:
636:
625:
624:
620:
619:
617:
614:
612:
611:
608:
607:
604:
601:
598:
596:
591:
588:
585:
582:
579:
576:
574:
570:
569:
567:
563:
561:
557:
556:
554:
550:
548:
543:
540:
538:
536:
532:
531:
528:
525:
522:
520:
519:MOS:EASTEREGG
516:
511:
510:
508:
507:
506:
502:
493:
485:
481:
477:
476:Sean Brunnock
472:
470:
466:
462:
461:Sean Brunnock
458:
455:
452:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
433:
432:
431:
427:
423:
422:Sean Brunnock
419:
416:
413:
412:
411:
410:
406:
402:
396:
393:
390:
388:
380:
366:
361:
357:
352:
348:
344:
340:
339:
338:
334:
330:
329:Sean Brunnock
326:
323:
320:
317:
316:
315:
310:
306:
301:
297:
294:
289:
288:
287:
283:
279:
278:Sean Brunnock
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:
257:
252:
248:
243:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
228:Sean Brunnock
224:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
211:
207:
202:
198:
189:
187:
186:
182:
178:
177:Sean Brunnock
174:
165:
163:
158:
151:
150:
143:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
89:
88:
80:
75:
73:
68:
66:
61:
60:
58:
57:
52:
49:
46:
45:Copying check
42:
41:
40:
39:
34:
29:
26:
19:
846:
839:
833:
829:
805:cyberattacks
774:
765:
757:
752:
744:
728:
718:
710:
702:
699:
687:
672:
632:
621:
613:
609:
578:
571:
558:
544:
533:
524:
512:
497:
397:
394:
391:
387:WP:PROSELINE
384:
321:
269:
265:
264:? Why 1980?
261:
196:
193:
170:
159:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
27:
555:Background
547:WP:CITELEAD
162:peer review
104:visual edit
815:smartphone
809:ransomware
781:e-commerce
695:— Trivial?
175:. Thanks,
770:possible.
270:1995-2004
266:1991-1995
262:1980-1991
886:Category
857:contribs
648:contribs
595:ViolaWWW
360:contribs
343:a notice
309:contribs
251:contribs
210:contribs
869:Whizz40
799:Netflix
676:Whizz40
660:Whizz40
501:Whizz40
437:Artem.G
401:Artem.G
197:in situ
127:history
108:history
94:Article
36:Toolbox
848:Ruбlov
639:Ruбlov
351:Ruбlov
300:Ruбlov
242:Ruбlov
201:Ruбlov
777:HTTPS
509:Lead
160:This
136:Watch
16:<
873:talk
853:talk
807:and
783:and
664:talk
644:talk
635:here
480:talk
465:talk
441:talk
426:talk
405:talk
356:talk
333:talk
305:talk
282:talk
268:and
247:talk
232:talk
206:talk
181:talk
123:edit
100:edit
345:at
888::
875:)
855:•
666:)
646:•
482:)
467:)
443:)
428:)
407:)
358:•
335:)
307:•
284:)
249:•
234:)
208:•
183:)
140:•
125:|
106:|
102:|
871:(
859:)
851:(
678::
674:@
662:(
650:)
642:(
521:.
503::
499:@
478:(
463:(
439:(
424:(
403:(
362:)
354:(
331:(
311:)
303:(
280:(
253:)
245:(
230:(
212:)
204:(
179:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
78:e
71:t
64:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.