Talk:Netiquette/Archive 1

From Where

How did these rules develop? Who created them? HOW DID THIS COME TO MEAN THAT I AM YELLING? Why does this article just tell what the rules are but nothing about them?

Initial comments

The above heading was added by 83.253.36.136 10:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first paragraph tells readers about Netiquette - afterwards, it's just a list of rules. If it seems that the rules are necessary to the article, could they at least be listed in such a way as to be descriptive (about Netiquette) rather than prescriptive (telling the reader what to do)? Raistlinjones 20:55, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go for it. Matt gies 09:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All sounds fine to me. Seems to say the same thing over and over. ~~Luke Schryver~~ 20 Feb 07

In the article about Canter & Siegel it says April 12 1994 marks the Net's early period when Netiquette could be enforced. I think something like this should be included here because such historical data is interesting to know in the context of new forms of activity (eg filesharing) appearing and disappearing and peoples' views, behaviours, and expectations changing. Nicholas Vorontsov 2:58 AM Aug 12 2005

Preaching only to the choir?

Does the article as written actually tell anyone something useful?

The whole article is beginning to read like ancient history. Many unmoderated newsgroups are all but abandoned, not because of failures of netiquette, but because they've been taken over commercial or destructive forces who must be using bots or slaves. Success now seems to belong to private mailing lists that have at least a bot-proof challenge for joining. Some of them actually have real people acting as editors, cleaning up spelling, grammar, flaming, and even factual errors.

The concepts still apply to e-mail, of course, but the recommendation against putting HTML in e-mail is nearly out of date. Most people seem to be using e-mail systems that encourage them to mess with the formatting. One in particular makes e-mail composition an activity that is done inside of MS Word. Curmudgeons such as yours truly are not pleased. Snezzy 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Application defaults do not change netiquette however. Despite the increasing ease of HTML in email, the netiquette still remains right? On the other hand, where is the text you are refering to? I can't even find it in the history. I think it would be a useful addition. LightYear 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

All this talk about netiquette in e-mails, but I could find no mention of spam or a link to that. It just seems like a major omission.

"All this talk"? It looks like a pretty short section on email to me. Anyway, more to the point, I'm not so sure that spam comes under the definition of netiquette. Consider a traditional analogy - in business etiquette, it might be advisable to shake hands, treat clients with respect and supply what is agreed upon. I don't think it would be considered etiquette to refrain from breaking into customer's houses to steal their purchases back, for example. That would instead fall under a general civil code of practice either accepted as universal and moral or declared by law. My suggestion is that spam is similarly out of the realm of netiquette. LightYear 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet etiquette

This section reads quite well in general, but in my experience, the following two points are not generally considered good netiquette:

"Religious beliefs, political stances, or other strong opinions are inappropriate for inclusion ... as a signature" - I've not seen instances where this causes problems. Unmarked off-topic discussions originating from such signatures are bad form, but it is quite common, and I believe acceptable netiquette, to reveal a little about one's own beliefs or background in a signature. Personally I don't specifically do this, but don't mind glancing at the snapshot of another author's beliefs. In general, netiquette is hard and I don't know what the consensus is.

"If you believe someone has violated netiquette, send him or her a message by private e-mail" - on the contrary, a polite reply to the newsgroup avoids the original poster receiving many copies of similar emails; allows the rest of the readers to see that the job is done; and informs any other unaware readers of the mistake made. I was under the impression that netiquette called for politeness, but also relied on education and strived for economy of labour. LightYear 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email etiquette

Removed this sentence by 24.215.133.164, in relation to sending large email attachments:

(Note: as technology advances and more people have broadband or highspeed internet connections, the necessity of this rule becomes lessened.)

No assumption should be made about the recipient's connection, device, or amount of time or attention available. In fact, with the prevalence of mobile email access, large, unsolicited attachments are especially undesirable. --LightYear 04:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forwarding to a list

Is there not a rule saying, don't forward an e-mail to a public forum without getting consent? 212.143.17.66 05:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of BCC

The following point was added by 217.132.69.137.

When sending to a number of people, use BCC (Blind Carbon Copy) rather than CC. This protects each recipient's privacy from the other recipients. This also helps reduce spam by preventing address harvesting.

I claim that this is far too general. The CC field is plenty useful. It's impossible to "reply to all" for example, if BCC is used. BCC should only be used when the recipients do not already know each other, or when there's other reasons for keeping the addresses hidden. Address harvesting is irrelevant unless the email (and the contained addresses) gets wider distribution, which is an issue of distribution, not CC/BCC. The CC field is precisely for "sending to a number of people", so it seems to me that the statement is simply wrong. Perhaps it could be clarified by stating the situations where one is preferred over the other, but then I think we are gettting off-topic for netiquette. I'm removing the statement, pending further suggestions. LightYear 00:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research - Move to Wikibooks and rewrite

In the BCC comment above, one sees a problem that is present throughout the page. The page is littered with original, unsourced comments that, while often valid, are not really appropriate for the Wikipedia. I'm going to flag the page for a proposed rewrite. The rewritten section on Internet forum is, while imperfect, perhaps a better start for that rewrite than the bulleted lists here. That said, the page as it stands could be moved to Wikibooks w/o any serious issues, as it is largely valid, even if it is written as more of a guide than an encyclopedic article. May also want to contact the original source and invite him to copy as much as he wants from here, as the sites are both GFDL-licensed, rather than compete with him here or on wikibooks. Common courtesy and all that, MrZaius^talk 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I go to an encyclopedia for information. This article, whatever flaws there are, contains valid information. As a moderator on FUNimation's forums, I recently sent a kid to this article and the one on Internet forum because when we warned him about his behavior, the kid complained that he was new and didn't know. He can read this and be educated, which is the purpose of an encyclopedia, even if the entry is in guide form. That's my opinion on the subject at least. :-/ AstroNerdBoy 20:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you say, but, given the unencyclopedic tone of this piece, it's still probably better suited for Wikibooks. Note that I called for a move of the current article to take place before a major deletion and cleanup to meet the WP:MoS. MrZaius^talk 13:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article is all that bad! We should at least have a stub here as a target for the 24 other versions of this article in other languages. Andrewa 11:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that bad as a guide, but it's way off-topic as an encyclopedia article, constantly stating that the reader "should" do X, Y, and Z rather than stating that place X says do X, person Y says do Y, magazine Z says do Z, and place A has rules conflicting with X and Z. Contacting original author and inviting him to merge back the current version of the guide before taking the scissors to this article. Note that I never called for the article's deletion - A decent length stub will certainly exist in the early stages of the rewrite. MrZaius^talk 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard what I said about the original author - wouldn't fit his general layout either. Will dig around a little more for another place to post this massive compendium of OR prior to the rewrite. MrZaius^talk 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Word Origin

(neologism, a portmanteau formed from "network etiquette", though now commonly mistaken to be "Internet etiquette")

I dispute this. This is a joking word multiple people thought up on their own before it was in common usage. For many who "coined the term" it was a play on using "net" as a prefix for any internet activity. Claiming the "real" meaning is the less obvious one and calling the other "mistaken" is presenting an unprovable opinion as fact, with a hint of snobbery.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Softdog (talk • contribs)

Agree with the above unsigned observation. The current wording of neologism, a portmanteau which some claim is formed from "network etiquette", though the more common usage is "Internet etiquette" is probably better. I didn't write it, but I think it's accurate, and it avoids the (painful IMO) POV of the earlier attempt. But it still smacks of weasel words. Some cited sources would be good, especially in view of the various opinions, supporting each. Andrewa 09:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So many tags

...so many words, so little action. This article currently has five cleanup tags on it. Only one of them (the one claiming original research) has any obvious connection to a section in the talk page.

The aim of these tags is supposed to be to improve the article. IMHO they are quite pointless without some sort of rationale in the talk page. Andrewa 11:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a rewrite was proposed in the OR section of the talk, and the tone&neutrality tags are based on the concerns mentioned therein - striking those two as borderline redundant, pending rewrite. The references tag hardly warrants explanation when only one inline citation exists in a 15k article, and that a malformatted external link rather than a normal citation. MrZaius^talk 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how to clean this page up

a short and less sarcastic definition of the word and its scope together with some references would suffice. definitions of the rules of netiquette are necessarily not objective or neutral, so get rid of them. let the bloggers deal with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoNo1234 (talk • contribs)

Yeah right...

Yeah right. Everyone is always breaking the rules and being mean to each other. If it's on the list (the nettiquette list) chances are, it's already been broken and no one cares. that's the problem with the internet, people just assume they have the right to be mean to someone they don't know.

It's too bad. 69.235.248.230 20:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]