Talk:Timeline of popular Internet services

Random comments
Why is this timeline in reverse chronological order? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This list needs work! There major gaps in it. For example when did the first ISP (Internet Service Provider) open doors to the public, when was the first freenet introduced and where, etc. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, evidently nothing has happened since 2006. I think whoever addresses these issues will merit a Workingman's Barnstar. --StringRay (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"4chan and its new counter-culture of basement dwellers are created." Thats a bit harsh isn't it? --203.211.68.6 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No sources?
And seems like "original research" or at least personal opinion as to what was "popular". W Nowicki (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any suggestion about the criteria we could use to make it more objective? --Micru (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Newgrounds
I'm not sure, but do you think Newgrounds.com is significant enough to be on this list? It was the first automated user-generated-content site. And the first and biggest flash portals. I believe it was at its peak of popularity in 2006 but still exists today. --PWNGWN (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The criteria I have been using so far is: first one to become popular in a certain category (for instance myspace was one of the first popular social networking sites) and the one (or two) services that are currently popular in that category (Facebook and Google+). In the case you are mentioning yes, I think it could be relevant to the list if Newgrounds was one of the first to initiate the category of browser games websites. The article about browser games also needs some history section... --Micru (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata
Is there any evidence as to the popularity of Wikidata? Excluding bot edits of course. If none is forthcoming, I'll remove it.--greenrd (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverse order
This is crazy! What kind of timeline is this? I would put this list in chronological order, but some mod would reverse my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.11.188 (talk) 5 October 2016

Inclusion criteria
Rather than add or remove Internet services based on subjective interpretation of what "popular" means i.e. WP:OR), perhaps we come up with inclusion criteria (one that may involve a different page title seems ok).

Some possibilities:
 * Sources calling something "popular" - Who knows how many tens of thousands of sites are described that way, with almost as many senses of the word. It's not a clear word to use and I don't think it helps us define criteria.
 * Traffic - The problem with traffic is that even if we have perfect traffic data over the last 20 years or so, web traffic in the 90s was dramatically less than it is today, such that a site that was among the most popular then probably wouldn't make the top 1000 today.
 * Traffic rankings - Alexa has been doing traffic rankings since, I think, the late 90s. Saying the list includes sites that have been in their top 10 or top 20 is a way to go, but with such a narrow criteria the list should probably be renamed accordingly. Also, historical data is only available to people with paid accounts on Alexa (I don't have one, and my bet is most others editing the page don't).
 * Other timelines of Internet services - If a reliable source has a timeline of popular Internet services or something reasonably similar, we add what it has to the list. The standard for sourcing would have to be high, because many such timelines' criteria are quite low, and would be sensitive to when they were published (e.g. in the early days of the web some people tried to document all the websites they could find).
 * Something else?

&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest a redirect to History of the Internet. Sources calling something "popular" isn't encyclopaedic. Traffic/Alexa is harder to find for certain services. The article seems to contain a select few services and I do not forsee any other solution. Considering a lack of interest and per WP:NOT, I suggest a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no neutral criteria for "popular". We should make the redirect or just delete it, since this page isn't much linked to nor is it a common typo of "History of the Internet". --damiens.rf 12:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably best to ping, whose AfD close included "I will note that those users arguing for keeping this have said that the problems with original research can be fixed; therefore, if these problems prove intractable, the WP:TNT argument will be more persuasive". Vanamonde, what would an appropriate time to wait for those arguing keep to address the pervasive issues with the page, and are you saying it should go back to AfD or that it would be appropriate to just redirect per TNT. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm (boldly) redirecting it per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirecting shouldn't hurt as the history will remain intact and it allows others to merge the data later if required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My opinion now appears to be moot, but should the issue arise again, I would say that a sustained effort to resolve the OR problem is necessary: failing that, TNT would be a good option. By sustained I would expect to see a proposal (preferably multiple) with respect to inclusion criteria, and some discussion about it. Setting a timeframe would not be helpful here, IMO. Vanamonde (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I see restored the page and  reverted. To be fair, it doesn't quite seem appropriate to for three people who voted to delete (Lemongirl942, damiens.rf, and me) to subsequently claim local consensus to redirect. A bold redirect is fine, of course -- certainly, a no consensus close is not binding to keep an article -- but if it's contested there should probably be a little bit of time on the talk page before restoring it (BRD). Granted, nobody has posted to disagree on the talk page, and a discussion can happen regardless of whether it's a redirect or not. I'd say it's not too late, but the ball's in the court of anyone wishing to retain the article to propose workable inclusion criteria. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)