Jump to content

Talk:2000s

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Renaming of Article

[edit]

The issue within this article is that it speaks of the 2000s within a the United States perspective, if that is the case then should the article be renamed to "2000s in the United States" or something similar. Connor W (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good way to go. The article may have a US perspective, but it has a huge amount of non-US information, in the Politics and wars, Disasters, Economics, Religion, and other sections. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the article is more skewed to a British perspective than a US perspective Oli Wheeler (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How? Connor W (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collage

[edit]

It appears an RFC on collages on Wikiproject years will be interpreted to also ban collages in decade articles. Users here may wish to participate. Koopinator (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JadaClark2002 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jhernandez07, Asrogers23.

— Assignment last updated by Asrogers23 (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I restore People section?

[edit]

2000s in officialy retro and i beleive it could be restored. EditingIsMyHobby (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web 2.0

[edit]

@Escape Orbit: I quote from MOS:LINKCLARITY: "The link target and the link label do not have to match exactly, but the link must be as intuitive as possible (see § Intuitiveness)." The link is clear and intuitive, especially since Web 2.0 is defined as a generation of websites that emphasize user-generated content and participation among and exchange between users. "[...] sources about globalization do not mention web 2.0" is simply a straw man. I wrote that trivial and/or obvious statements don't require references, and this is such a case. Numerous examples are given for Web 2.0 websites in the following sentences, and the impact of such websites on society is also explained. My added content is therefore correct simply from logic and doesn't require a source in a similar manner like "1+1=2" doesn't. Maxeto0910 (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well, but the reader has no idea where the link is taking them, and the relevance only becomes apparent once they arrive there. The statement has also been added before a sentence that says "This contributed to globalization during the decade", which refers to the growth of the internet, not "emphasis on user interaction". So the meaning of this sentence has been changed in a way that it no longer reflects what the following sources say. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[...] the reader has no idea where the link is taking them"
Like I said, I think that the link is relatively clear in this context, especially considering that users can simply move their mouse over it when on PC or hold the link for a few seconds when on mobile to see where it leads to. Also, like I already quoted from MOS:LINKCLARITY, the link target and link label don't have to match exactly; the link just has be as intuitive as possible. Anyway, I'd definitely argue that the link has value to readers, as the emergence and rise of the Web 2.0 is a crucial aspect of the development of the Internet of the 2000s.
"So the meaning of this sentence has been changed in a way that it no longer reflects what the following sources say."
The sources simply refer to the globalization aspect caused by the Internet; they don't explicitly relate to the growing Internet use as such as a requirement (I mean, it is indeed a requirement and quite trivial, but that's not what the sources cover). And since the ability of users to interact with each other as well as the growing Internet access and resulting use is essential for online communication, all of these developments are interlinked and mutually dependent on each other anyway. Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC
But the problem is that it is you that is linking them, not the sources. The globalization caused by the internet may have nothing to do with Web 2.0, it may have happened despite Web 2.0. Maybe the growth and globalization was overwhelmingly within the realm of Web 1.0. Or maybe Web 2.0's involvement has simply gone unnoticed by the sources. But it's not for you to decide it played a significant part. I'm not adverse to Web 2.0 being mentioned, but levering it into the middle of things here, propping up both growth and globalization, is not supported by sources.
As for your Easter Egg link; This link could lead the reader to a great number of places. Is it social media (my first guess)? Is it online shopping? Is it web application? peer-to-peer? MMOG? How is the reader to know, unless they follow the link to unlock the prize? I went to the shops today. Now tell me where that link goes simply by reading it. Cos it conforms to the same standard as your link. It's on topic, it expands on what I think you need to know, but it could be dozens of different things. Did you guess correctly? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"But the problem is that it is you that is linking them, not the sources."
This is, again, an argument from pure logic. Globalization throughout the Internet is impossible with Web 1.0, as the term Web 2.0 by its nature describes websites that enable user communication and interaction with each other, which is pretty much the definition of globalization.
Like I already explained, I don't see the linking as such as a major problem, especially not since you do have a preview of where it leads to (moving mouse over it or holding the link). Having a not entirely clear link that is potentially relevant and interesting for readers, as it describes a crucial element of the Internet's development of the 2000s, is still better than not having a link at all. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxeto0910 I do not recognise your definition of globalization. And your opinion of what web 2.0 made possible, that web 1.0 couldn't, remains unsupported by the sources on this article. It is not "pure logic".
You also are making assumptions about how the reader is reading the article (mobile devices do not have mice to hover). And no, a link that leads the reader into the unknown is not better than no link at all. Particularly when the relevance of the link is not supported by any sources. Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my definition of globalization, but the general definition of it. See the Wikipedia article about it. Also, arguing that this would require sources remains a straw man, at least as long as you don't give any proper arguments or at least an explanation as to why you think that this isn't a topic of pure logic and definition. Simply saying that you disagree without explaining why is neither a valid argument nor helpful. Furthermore, your linked guideline doesn't state that a link should be completely avoided simply because it isn't absolutely clear; it merely states that the link should be as transparent as possible (just like I already wrote), which is always relative: When a link can't be 100% clear by exactly matching link target and link label, it's sufficient to be as clear and intuitive as possible in a given context. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does globalisation say it is about "user communication and interaction with each other"?
I don't think you understand the meaning of a straw man argument either. I am not misrepresenting your argument, I am saying it is not in line with Wikipedia policy of requiring sources. Your position is that this is optional when you reckon it's obvious. I'm saying that your addition is is not obvious. If you want to link Web 2.0 in this statement , then produce sources that mention it in this context and actually say you are talking about "Web 2.0". Don't hide the connection behind a link, thinking this negates the need to cite it.
It is not obvious "pure logic" because you are making a double jump from "internet growth in the 2000s facilitated globalisation" to "interaction between users" to "Web 2.0". But what evidence is there that there is any connection? Where are the sources that say this? This is all, at best, original synthesis.
Guidelines specifically say "Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them (or, at least, to hover their mouse pointer on those links to get page previews in the form of navigation popups) before understanding where they lead." (Emphasis mine) And yet that is exactly what you are suggesting the reader should do to appreciate your conclusion of where the connections lead.
I always find in disputes like this that reference back to core policy is the solution, and that policy is Verifiability. If you have a source that states what you think is "pure logic", then we have a solution. If you don't, then it can not be in the article. Simple as that. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Where does globalisation say it is about "user communication and interaction with each other"?"
In its Wikipedia article, according to which it "is the process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments worldwide". Thus, the definition of contributing to globalization cannot be meet by pre-Web 2.0 websites by their nature, because those websites by definition weren't designed to enable the interaction with and exchange of user-generated content.
"I don't think you understand the meaning of a straw man argument either. I am not misrepresenting your argument […]"
I explicitly wrote that it's only a straw man argument as long as you don't give any concrete reason or argument as to why you think it's not obvious, which you didn't, because only then you would adress my argument. Like I already wrote: Simply arguing that it's not obvious without explaining why isn't a valid counter argument, and as long as you don't substantiate your view, I will stick to my opinion that there is no need for a reference because it's true by definition and therefore an obvious statement.
"It is not obvious "pure logic" because you are making a double jump from "internet growth in the 2000s facilitated globalisation" to "interaction between users" to "Web 2.0". But what evidence is there that there is any connection? Where are the sources that say this? This is all, at best, original synthesis."
You're going in circles: I already said that there's no need for a reference for logical and/or obvious statements, and I already explained and gave reasons for why I think this is a logical and obvious statement, namely that Web 2.0 is a requirement for the possibility of globalization by its definition. You dispute my approach, which I would be fine with if you'd give a reason or argument; but instead of doing that, you simply repeat your claim that it just isn't obvious. Also, there are many articles which state that Web 2.0 is a crucial development of the 2000s and that it contributed to and/or enabled exchange and interaction among users and companies on a large scale (which, again, is pretty much the definition of globalization):
"And yet that is exactly what you are suggesting the reader should do to appreciate your conclusion of where the connections lead."
No, I simply said that this is an option if you have absolutely no clue where a link will lead you to. I'm neither saying that this would be appropriate if it'd be necessary for all users to get a clue of where the link will lead to nor that this would actually be required for all users in this case: Like I said, I think that the link is quite clear in this context. I acknowledge that the link may not be entirely clear to all users, as, like you explained, there is indeed room for interpretation, but like I wrote, a link doesn't have to be 100% clear, which also simply isn't always possible. Thus, it's okay if the link appears to not be entirely intuitive to all users, as long as the link adds value (because it's a crucial development of the 2000s Internet) and as long as it's not entirely cryptic to all readers. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are indeed going in circles because you keep saying "it's obvious because it follows a definition that I've made up that allows me to join the dots between one and the other". I don't know what more you expect me to say, other than it's not obvious. I cannot prove a negative, only you can prove that it is obvious. If it was obvious then you would be no trouble finding sources that say it. Instead you've got sources about web 2.0 that (by means of your jump in logic that only you think is obvious and do not appear in the sources) contributed to globalisation. That's nowhere good enough.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: This is not my definition; this is literally the general definition of globalization, which also stands in its Wikipedia article. Like I showed, there are tons of articles that explicitly state that Web 2.0 contributed to and/or enabled exchange and interaction among users and companies on a large scale, which is the definition of globalization. The reason why there are so few sources which in this context directly add that this is called globalization is probably because this aspect is so easily derivable by definition and therefore so trivial that almost no one who thinks logically would even remotely deny it or care about a "proof" for something that's already clear by definition. For a similar reason, there are hardly any articles in the popular media about the fact that the U.S. dollar is the official currency of the USA. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000s&oldid=1236823808"