Talk:Internet2

Internet2 connected to Internet1?

Is the internet2 connected to the regular internet? Or is it a complete independent network? thanks, --Abdull 12:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a complete independent network, according to an article in USAToday, Internet2 is higher-tech version of regular Internet, posted online 4/13/2005 9:17 PM. According to the article, Internet2 users can only communicate with other Internet2 users. Often, however, at many colleges, Internet2 is linked transparently to Internet1 behind the scenes. For example, a student sending e-mail would exchange data across Internet1, until e-mailing a someone at another Internet2 university; that e-mail would, instead, travel across Internet2. The article goes on to say that Internet2 will probably never be open to the public, but that the technologies developed in Internet2 will eventually migrate over to Internet1, making Internet1 faster and more stable. --Tregonsee 21:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just want to point out that all this information is already mentioned in the article. It states that it is a completely independant network. If that's not already clear, perhaps we should work on rewording it so it is. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:03, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

that doesn't seem correct, i believe people do have access to normal Internet (1 or 2 is nonsense 1 is made up and 2 it's a consortium) even if only one point(gateway) is connected to the Internet people in Abilene network do have access all over. but, if more gateways are available there probably will be mechanisms not to route through the Abilene network.

Internet2 is not a network

I reverted the information added that suggests Internet2 is a computer network that is somehow separate from the Internet. This misconception is largely the result of all the recent reporting on the RIAA's lawsuits against students attending several Universities that participate in the Abilene Network. If you will notice, nearly all of the articles that reference Internet2 as a network have been written recently and are the sad result of poorly checked facts. The original text of this article is correct; see the About page on the Internet2 website for very clear confirmation of this. IPv6 and related technologies have been deployed on many backbones and major web service providers for a few years now, and it's a fallacy to call Abilene a 'separate Internet.' Abilene simply forms a major interconnected backbone, on which one can access other backbone members at very high speeds. Abilene members can be accessed from the Internet just like any other major backbone network (I access systems at Georgia Tech from my home all the time, as anecdotal evidence)

I believe the information regarding the "Internet2 controversy" is appropriate, but should be included on the Abilene page, not here. I will put a note on this page mentioning the mislabeling of Abilene as Internet2. -- uberpenguin 18:22, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

"What is Internet2?

Think of Internet2 as a higher-tech version of the regular Internet. Like "Internet1," Internet2 connects computers all across the country. But it uses newer, more experimental technology. That can make it less stable than Internet1 — but it's also about 100 times as fast under typical conditions.

Who gets to use it?

More than 200 universities and 60 companies belong to Internet2, as do a handful of organizations and government agencies. To join, members must contribute research toward "developing a better Internet," says Douglas Van Houweling, CEO of the non-profit group that runs Internet2. It is not open to the public.

Who pays for it?

Users pay fees to the non-profit that administers the network. A typical university would pay about $200,000 a year. Government agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, also provide some funding.

Is it connected to the regular Internet?

No, it's a separate network. Internet2 users can only contact other Internet2 users. That's why all the accused file-swappers are college students.

The original Internet works fine. Why is Internet2 needed?

In 1969, the University of California at Los Angeles and Stanford University set up a simple computer network that could send data back and forth between the two campuses. For more than 20 years, academics tinkered with this network and its successors. They used the networks to test computer technology and send research data.

In the early 1990s, commercial interest in one of the successor networks, now called the Internet, soared. Web pages popped up, and suddenly it became impractical to tinker with the network for research projects. Scientists wanted their own network again, and in 1996, created Internet2."

USA Today [1]

USA Today is wrong. Simple as that. -- uberpenguin 03:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

yep, youre right, to the others, go down to the source, not just any newspaper. 84.183.237.195 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Internet 2 necessity & control issues

With people like George Tenet saying:

"I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he told a closed information-technology security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control." - [2]

I have to wonder, isn't anyone else suspicious of the true motives behind implementing Internet 2? I have yet to see a convincing case as to its necessity (from a rights-respecting perspective); perhaps that could be elucidated in this article?

Additional reading: [3] - "Kiss your Internet Good-bye"

Eventually. With Internet 2, No more free speech.--Edtropolis 19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is an issue that has to be addressed. The Internet is breaking down the monopoly of traditional, commercial media. In my opinion it is not paranoid to consider the possibility that the freedom of speech the Internet has given the humanity, could be a "bad" thing for those who have been able to control the flow of information before the Internet. It does seem quite suspicious to me that one of the objectives of the Internet2 consortium is to be able to Monitor, filter and limit all traffic on the network. --Jyri-poika (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a nonissue with regard to internet2. The "Additional reading" link above from newswithviews a clearly an extreme off the wall watched way too much X-files tabloid conspiracy to the point of paranoid lunacy site. "U.S. Gravediggers to be Fully Employed: Surprised?" with its "stainless steel wrist band type bracelets that carried the hardware for uploading, tracking and broadcasting uniquely personal encoded information" is typical of the garbage at that site. The incoherent paranoid ramblings at that site make the idea held by the fictional General Ripper of Stranglove fame look rational by comparison.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Abilene is not connected to "Internet1"

Abilene is not connected to "the first" Internet. Abilene is seperate, but this Wikipedia article (formerly) seemed to imply that it is actually connected to the so-called Internet1. Abilene is a private network backbone and does not connect to the "commercial" Internet. Qwest's webpage has a good FAQ about Internet2/Abilene. [4] Robotbeat 23:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: Internet 2 necessity & control issues

The article as it stands now (00:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)), the article is pretty free of speculation, and that's for the best right now. If the article was like 5 pages long, then maybe a speculation or political dispute section could be added, but to add speculation into such a short article would be to confuse people reading it and (worse) perhaps give credibility to those who claim that Wikipedia is simply an Internet chatroom for people to vent their opinions.

"I have to wonder, isn't anyone else suspicious of the true motives behind implementing Internet 2? I have yet to see a convincing case as to its necessity (from a rights-respecting perspective);"

You seem to be confusing Internet2 with something it's not. Abilene is what you probably are refering to when you say "Internet2." Abilene is for research purposes only. It is not the next-generation of the Internet. It is not for the general public, nor is it ever going to be. Some of the things learned during the Abilene project will certainly help when doing future upgrades to the Internet, but Abilene itself is NOT an upgrade to the Internet that the public uses. And most experts agree that the Internet will need to be upgraded at some time in future. IPv6 is one technology used by Abilene which will become more and more necessary for the public Internet as time goes on.

On a personal note, I think that you should be more careful in making wild speculations like this when you don't know what you're talking about. I believe that people should not hold strong opinions about things they do not understand. Robotbeat 00:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

-- To touch on what you said about the true motives, from what Ive gathered, the Internet2 is faster because it cuts out most of the internet....the system only allows certain people to make pages, essentially it is a way to police the internet by removing all blogging and other forms of free speach, as well as all personal websites....

Ive also heard that the internet2 was passed by the house in one of those 900 page doccuments they use to sneak laws in, and will be put into effect for the public next year, and at that point all major internet companies will conviniently stop maintaining their servers so that the old internet dies out but its done legally...

I am working to find more sources on this, however media is highly filtered about it.

Take it with a grain of salt, and look into it, I am just trying to contribute what I have heard. Akanna (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So far the only people I have seen make claims like this regarding Internet2 are either a) paranoid NWO Know Nothings who make Joseph McCarthy look rational or b) people who take the statements of Group a at face value.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones' Opinion on Internet2

How many people here think that the opinion of Alex Jones on the Internet warrants mention in the article? (See [5] [6] [7])--Jersey Devil 17:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Alex who? Who cares now? Revert with a vengence. -- uberpenguin 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Upon reading a bit on this guy, exactly why do his opinions warrant consideration? He isn't any sort of respected technology commentator, and the linked article sounds more like paranoia and ignorance than a valid critique of Internet2 (or, what it ACTUALLY is, and not whatever he seems to think it is). -- uberpenguin 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly, it is just that the user (User:Striver) who put it up goes around putting up Alex Jones' opinions on many articles including this one claiming that not doing so violates NPOV (claiming that NPOV requires all views to be shown in an article) and is an "attack" on his point of view. It gets quite frustrating when certain users refuse to stop reverting articles to interject their POV claiming that I am the bad guy. This guy put an Rfc on me for this kind of thing.--Jersey Devil 00:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone intrested in you can take a look at this Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion. But im not here to talk about that.

Ill change the headline to "views". Alex is a notable jornalist with a notable site and has 2 millions of subscribers. You dont need to like his views to accept that NPOV demands that his views to be represented, no mater how much you hate them. --Striver 14:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, his views are cirtical, so the headline is correct. However, i added a disblaimer.--Striver 14:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The guy has no idea what he's talking about. His speculations are completely irrelevant to Internet2. --Mmx1 18:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't care if he is a notable journalist which I've never heard of; he's completely ignorant when it comes to what Internet2 is, and his opinions here are totally invalid. You wouldn't go to the article on, say, computers and add some looney's opinion that computers are in fact powered by unicorns and are merely a government scheme to enact mind control, would you? Alex's misunderstanding of what Internet2 is should sound nearly equally ludacris to anyone with the ability to read this article.

For you to use NPOV as an excuse to shoehorn someone's opinion into an article requires at the very least the opinion to be coherent and have some relationship to reality. This guy doesn't know what Internet2 is any better than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company. -- uberpenguin 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. It doesn't matter whether this guy (Alex Jones) is a brilliant, insightful, intrepid revealer of shadowy conspiracies, or a nutcase freak-show publicity hound. Striver's references are primary sources, which is to say, opinions, and unless you can find a credible secondary source reporting on Alex Jones's opinions, it doesn't belong here. Encyclopedias are not newspapers. -- Gnetwerker 07:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

P.s. -- A disblaimer? I gotta write that one down. -- Gnetwerker 07:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more information Alex Jones has seen fit to reveal to us. We should start putting those facts in relevant articles! Who starts with Vicente Fox being able to morph into a green devil?! Surely that's important relevant information; suppressing it is POV CENSORSHIP! What, are you all a part of the the evil tyrannical secret rulers of the world who are trying to kill 80% of world population? Weregerbil 10:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Alex Jones is a well known journalist, radio host, and conspiracy theorist. He has been interviewed on the Coast to Coast AM national radio show several times. His criticism is warranted and cited and should not be removed. --Northmeister 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Not everything that comes out of the mouth of a radio chat show host is notable. He is not an expert on the matter by any stretch of the imagination. He is not an encyclopedic source. Weregerbil 08:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not allow this. We require reliable sources, in particular this violates the partisan websites policy which states:

Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

Therefore it is not plausible that we cite Alex Jones on every single page on Wikipedia because "he is a famous talk show host".--Jersey Devil 08:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether he is famous; as far as I'm concerned he's a raving paranoid lunatic and he certainly hasn't the slightest clue what Internet2 is. See my above example about unicorns for an idea of just how far removed from reality this guy's perception of technology is. I don't care about you folks' particular edit feud over Mr. Jones opinions, but his near total ignorance of what Internet2 is makes his opinion invalid for inclusion in this article. -- uberpenguin 12:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's step back for moment. Our purpose is to tell the whole story. Alex Jones might be a little out there on some issues, but he documents his theories quite well or Coast to Coast AM would not have given his ideas the light of day. That said...adding Jones to this article as someone who fears or has grave concerns about Internet2 considering his background as an investigative journalist who has exposed the ceremonies (quite odd I might say) at the Bohemian Grove, and who continues to challenge authority on different levels. His method is crude but I don't think he is a 'lunatic' as some call him. Adding him to every article, no unless it is relevant to that article in some way. But, since criticism of Internet2 is certainly warranted to put in this article (we are not suppose to be advocating, but simply reporting with NPOV). Let us include his reservations. People who thinks Jones is a crackpot as above will ignore this, those who listen to him seriously but with a grain of salt -like myself, will be enlightened but will want to read more about this Internet2. In other words, I don't see a legitimate argument against the inclusion of Jones reservations. Also, please...do not compare Alex Jones to Neo-Nazis or StormFront...that is just not right. --Northmeister 23:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

that's nonsense, wikipedia isn't to gather all possible writings (neither in person(text itself) nor as a link), it is about to be an encyclopedia, stating facts conclusions and explainations, including their sources. (i know AJ makes conclusions, but if they can be proven wrong, or assumptions that are not generally accepted have to be considered, the conclusion must not be posted here.)84.183.237.195 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Objections to straw poll

This is ridiculous, we don't have "straw polls" for content that violates wikipedia policy already stated.--Jersey Devil 02:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Which violation? If your going to make accusations then provide us the violation? The above was an attempt to work the situation out and do the right thing. It's called collaborative work so we know what the community thinks. Straw Polls are sometimes a part of wikipedia process of editing when disputes exist. It is not binding, but I will stick with it, as the inclusion of Jones, though relevant as far as I am concerned, is not important enough to engage in endless debate. I accept the will of the majority of editors on this. Thanks for the input though. --Northmeister 02:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nonsense. Again, Jones is free to speculate about state-controlled internet hubs, but thats not Internet2, regardless of what he chooses to call it. --Mmx1 02:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tone down the hostility. I disagree, but I accept the straw poll as binding on myself so long as consensus holds. Thanks. --Northmeister 03:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not hostility toward you the poster or Alex Jones the subject of the criticism to call a spade a spade. Internet2 is a consortium of universities and corporations (no government connection! except tangentially through the state schools that are involved) that created a high-speed backbone. There are no plans to dismantle the existing backbone nor to "register web sites" on either backbone as Alex Jones claims, so indeed it is complete nonsense. Feel free to put it on a page about censorship concerns and the internet, but this is irrelevant to the content of this article. --Mmx1 03:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Has it occurred to anyone that if Alex Jones is as off-base as he appears to be in this case, maybe it wouldn't hurt to email the guy and clue him in? I'm sure he'd withdraw his position, unless he's come across something that frames the argument differently, which us non-investigative journalists wouldn't have prior knowledge of. If the latter is the case, then that'd surely make a worthy addition to this article, for that matter.

Feel free to. We aren't Alex Jones' watchdog, we're just concerned with keeping this article accurate. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-04-04 14:07Z 14:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

This page needs an added 'criticism' chapter, so that critics who have voiced opinions that reflect possible negative aspects or abuses of power that the a governtment monitored and controlled Internet 2 may be susceptible to. The internet is a government controlled and monitored service for it's people in China, and the Chinese people suffer great restrictions on their uses of it and also the world's content of information on the internet is available to them only in a highly censored manner. If a criticism section is not added then this article needs to be tagged for lack of neutrality.

First, Internet2 is not "the next Internet", it's a non-profit consortium that's developing and testing next-generation technologies that may make their way to the internet. Second, said consortium is not "controled" by the government. Third, NPOV does not mean representing every manner of criticism on a topic that people have come up with. -- mattb @ 2006-12-02T16:01Z

So your opinion is that it will be a perfect flawless system which we should give our unconditional trust to.. and criticism of it's flaws, potential and otherwise, is an unneeded chapter in it's wikipedia page entry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.249 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

It's my opinion that you still aren't grasping what Internet2 is and what it does. Furthermore it's my opinion that you don't understand the meaning of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines. My opinions as regards predictions of next-generation Internet technologies don't belong here whatsoever, so I'll withold them. -- mattb @ 2007-01-09T17:24Z

Perhaps not a criticism section, but a "controversy" section, is what is in order. --Luftschiffritter5 1 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Internet2 doesn't "develop technology"

It is one of many enablers of the development of technology.

I removed the statment about Internet2 developing technology such as IPv6, multicast, and QoS. These technologies and research has involved hundreds of researchers and perhaps thousands of engineers, much of which predates the existance of Internet2 and most of which had nothing whatsoever to do with Internet2. -- James Sterbenz, EECS/ITTC, The University of Kansas

Units

"831 mbps of data sent from Redmond, WA to Arlington, VA in under 82 seconds."

Should this read "Data was sent at 831 Mbps from Redmond [..]"? Given that it was sent in under 82 seconds I think the author of this point confused the speed with amount of data actually sent (in other words, I don't think it should read "831 megabits of data was sent...")

I saw that too and it doesn't make sense. I don't know where that information came from either, but I did find a record event similar to this one where 8.4 gigabytes were transfered for 81 seconds over 5626 kilometers (probably about the right distance between Redmond, WA and Arlington, VA). I changed this and added a reference. http://www.internet2.edu/lsr/history.html Thepatriots 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Record

Looks like there is a new record, the page needs to be updated. Akubhai 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the record reported on slashdot is old. I'd like to say RTFM (: It's from 2006 actually, as both the description and the article states.abach 05:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As of October 2007: Abilene gone, Internet2 Network here!?

This article appears to be obsolete according to the information at the Internet2 Network Upgrade blog. See also my comments on the [Abeline Network talk page]. I'm sorry that I don't have the knowledge to make the necessary edits myself!—Blanchette (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to be confused with...

Can we have some "not to be confused with" header, or some mention of the common misconceptions. As argued a while back about Alex Jones, a lot of people have a misconception that internet2 is going to be the future for regular user, and there will be heavy censorship involved.

The issues these people are talking about, are more to do with net neutrality, the european 'telecoms package', and other plans that want a more cable tv like system instead of the 'free access' we have now. These of course have nothing to do with internet2. I saw some of the government documents that Jones was using to justify his noise, and they talked about the future "Internet 2" as a generic term, more alike to web 2.0, not connected to the internet2 project.

So can someone with the right knowledge add something to the article about these common myths? Whatthewhatwhat (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Internet 2 = Goverment Crackdown on Freedom of speech

just google it if you dont beleive me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.77.238 (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The only even reliable source in the first two pages Google produces is Russo, Alexander (2005) "Internet2 It's better, it's faster. You can't use it." Slade June 7, 2005 which says "Internet2 was never designed to replace the Internet most of us are using now. It's more like a beach or a restaurant—great when not too many people know about it, frustrating when everybody and his mother starts to show up". The even earlier Lu Stout, Kristie (2003) Internet 2 works to reinvent the Web CNN March 11, 2003 article that makes no statement about censorship.

In short the only people who see Internet2 as a free speech issue are the same kind of people as likely to wear tin foil hat to protect them from the mind weapons wielded by little Grey aliens who also pilot black helicopters and take their orders straight from Elvis who is secretly living at Groom Lake, NV.--67.16.86.217 (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

All Internet2 is, is a large university testbed network, designed to replicate the original pre-public internet with more modern equipment so the universities can continue to run experiments on the network itself so they can avoid breaking the real internet and costing people millions of dollars. Some of the technologies developed on Internet2 end up on the real internet, but anyone who tells you "They're (the government are) going to shut down the internet and roll out internet2 and take all our freedoms away," has no grasp of the logistical reality of what they just said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.64.91 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would this article benefit from semi-protection?

I'm concerned that the article's history is just a series of back-and-forth edits; an IP address adds a conspiracy theory and then somebody with a wikipedia account removes it. This is not productive.
Personally, I'm open to compromise on including a bit about Alex Jones' claims, although we really shouldn't be giving much weight to fringe claims that are incompatible with what reliable sources say. However, we can't achieve a compromise whilst somebody keeps in adding their preferred text over and over again.
Any thoughts?
bobrayner (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have done a one month semi protect. The pattern you describe seems accurate and the IP is roving so I think it is sensible for now. --BozMo talk 11:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

These claims (and similar ones) should get no mention whatsoever here. They are complete fiction and the claims by the cited blog page and video don't even refer to the Internet2 consortium or their network implementations in any way, just some hypothetical censored version 2 of the Internet. Kbrose (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because the claims are made up doesn't necessarily mean they should go unmentioned - after all, wikipedia has entire articles on fan death, scientology, the Cottingley fairies, and so on. Rather, I would ask whether the claims are notable/significant in the context of this article. If a proportion of readers are visiting this article with Alex Jones' claims in mind, surely it wouldn't hurt to put the record straight and have a sentence that puts the claims in context?

bobrayner (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's WP:N notability too. I'd never heard of this man and his claims, but then I'm not American. Is he worldwide notable enough that anybody has bothered to publish (properly publish, under editorial control etc, WP:RS) a discussion or rebuttal of his statements? If so, let's use it; if not, then he probably isn't notable enough for mention. --Nigelj (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection to this article yet again. It appears that on the day the protection expires, the anonymous user returns to re-introduce the material. Should we simply make this semi-protection permanent? I don't like doing this, but there's not much else we can do - it's either semi-protection, or a series of edit-revert cycles that result in semi-protection anyway. Mindmatrix 16:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I see no better option than permanent protection if the semi-protection adds too much overhead to well-meaning editor's efforts. The constant reverts certainly are annoying and these additions in no way add to the accuracy or credibility of WP. This article is about a reputable organization involved in higher education and the frontiers of networking technologies, somewhat like a biography of living persons (BLP) and should have a similar level of protection against derogatory nonsense. Kbrose (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think permanent semi-protection would be appropriate.

Personally, I still think there's room for a sentence on Alex Jones' claims in context - given that they focus popular attention on what is otherwise a fairly obscure piece of technical infrastructure. By all means compare and contrast to what reliable sources say, and frame it however you like; but if a lot of readers arrive here with Alex Jones' claims in mind, and if this article presents a totally different story, I think silence on the subject is unhelpful. Think of it like homeopathy or astrology: those articles don't limit themselves to the simple evidence-based statement "Homeopathy doesn't work", and if they did they would be profoundly unhelpful; instead they discuss some common beliefs on the subject and contrast those against what the firm evidence says. bobrayner (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I've seen no evidence that there's any more than one IP (unregistered) user who repeatedly adds the same text at every opportunity. That does not make the views of this man Jones notable enough for coverage here. Have you got any reference to a serious discussion on Jones' views that we can cite here? I don't think his views are as famous as homeopathy or astrology. --Nigelj (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've permanently semi-protected this article. The IP user returned shortly after the three-month protection expired. Mindmatrix 00:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'multiple' issues

The article is tagged as follows:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

1. It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since March 2008.
2. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since November 2009.
3. It needs to be updated. Tagged since November 2007.

Re 1: There seem to be plenty of references through the text. They are a bit thin in the 'Objectives' and 'Achievements' sections. If anyone wants to challenge the statement in these sections, perhaps they can tag the sections, and start a discussion here?

Re 2: It is true that the majority of the citations are to somewhere in the http://internet2.edu domain. Maybe this should stay?

Re 3: It has been heavily edited every week since November 2007, so, whoever thought that something new was needed then has had plenty of time to add it themselves, or see it added by others. This should go.

Do others here agree that it is time to clean up these headers? --Nigelj (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and took action. References should include more independent citations, so I left the refimprove tag. Kbrose (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this subject, but just after a quick first read, this article definitely strikes me as having a bias in wc. While, admittedly, it has become much more common to have articles written in an overly friendly tone, it's heavy enough in this article that I actually feel it's an issue, and I can't remember the last time I commented on an article on wikipedia. I don't really know enough about the subject to make said changes, but I'm thinking this article could do with some rewrites. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dunnski007, 12 September 2010

1. REDIRECT Template:Edit semi-protected/preload

Second sentence of the article should read 'roles' instead of 'rolls'Dunnski007 (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your request, but, no, it should not. Kbrose (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.164.81.26, 22 October 2010

The first sentence of paragraph 2 contains an error. The project was started in 1996 under the auspices of EUDCOM (NOT EDUCAUSE). EDUCAUSE was not formed until 1998 in a merger of EDUCOM and CAUSE. See for example: http://www.educause.edu/About+EDUCAUSE/OperationsandBackground/CAUSEHistory/695 Internet2 was spun off from EDUCOM in 1997 as part of gthe new University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development. See for example: http://www.educause.edu/About+EDUCAUSE/OperationsandBackground/EducomHistory/696

67.164.81.26 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Jack McCredie mccredie@berkeley.edu Former president of EDUCOM (1980 - 1984) Associate Vice Chancellor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley 67.164.81.26 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Kbrose (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This Wikipedia Article Reads like an Ad

The tone of this article reminds me of a commercial advertisement. Phrases like "next-generation", "delivers production network services to meet the high-performance demands", "critical to the future of the Internet" are too much like commercial buzz phrases.

The article would be better if it didn't sound so over-enthusiastic. I suppose it may have been written by some student who is excited about recently being allowed on to Internet2, but even so, SOME restraint could be expected.

Where the author writes: "Many fields have been able to use the Abilene network to foster creativity, research, and development in a way that was not previously possible", the author should instead have enumerated those fields, and provided examples of the creativity, research and development that is mentioned. In that way, it would be up to the reader to decide which superlatives, if any, the R&D in these fields may merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.106.170 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. Maybe someone should go through and remove all instances of "advanced", "next-generation", "high-capacity", "high-performance", and other buzzy adjectives. I would do it, but such a change feels somehow too drastic. Anyone else feel up to it? It already has a tag from July 2012. If nobody does it by July of 2013, I'm going to do it.

The Internet itself is advanced, compared to a telegraph network. The telegraph network itself is next-generation, compared to older signalling methods (semaphore). See what I mean? It's all relative, and describing (repeatedly) Internet2 as 'advanced' achieves no informational value. One possible solution is to say "Internet2 is considered advanced, compared to [...]", but then you would have to state who exactly considers it as such. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

hybrid optical and packet network ?!

The Internet2 ″... network ... is ... a hybrid optical and packet network.″

If this is not nonsense, then it may be important: the article should explain it.

Sadly, the word 'optical' appears again only in a reference, and 'packet' does not appear again. Optical technology is physical (OSI Layer 1), an alternative to copper or radio: how are the signals carried from one place to another. Packet technology is logical , an alternative to sending the entire message in a single transmission: it breaks a chunk of data into smaller parts for transmission. (I'd place it at OSI Layer 3, but let's not start a side discussion if you disagree.)

Not only does the article read like an ad; it reads like the copy writer was ignorant of the product being advertised.

   Interstate2 is a hybrid concrete and motorcycle highway system.

If there is no response to this note, I'll assume the phrase is nonsense, and delete the sentence. Joaquin Miller (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)