Talk:World Summit on the Information Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled discussions[edit]

After an email I found out that most text on http://www.worldsummit2003.de is licensed under the GFDL. So it can be used on the Wikipedia. Guaka 19:39, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article is pretty weak. So is the article on Tunis... Sbwoodside 23:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article needs tidying up. 217.41.240.15 11:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Four very superfluous word-filled paras have been added to the end of this article. They do not really provide any extra useful info. 217.41.240.15 14:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV Problems[edit]

Before going about cleaning the POV language of the section called What role for business? What role for government?, I'd like to hear what others think. In my opinion, these paragraphs need rephrasing to remove the point-of-view and make it more encyclopaedic. -- Phellmon 12:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I agree, the second half of this article does need cleaning up. I'm also not sure why there is so much over-emphasis on the POV of the Roman Catholic Church - this occurs in several sections. 'The Church' certainly should be changed to Roman Catholic Church 138.130.208.217 02:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

digital solidarity fund??[edit]

Everyone is so negative but this here is a good thing which came out of the WSIS! [1]

The clean-up needed[edit]

Someone put a "clean-up needed" tag on the page. Let's list here all the things that have to be done before that tag can be removed.

  • Too many external links among the text
  • References made incorrectly
  • The quotes are possibly too numerous or too long

That's a start. Gronky 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several of the section seem to have the tone of a lecture, explaining concepts like civil society and digital divide in a rambling fashion. This article should attempt to identify what actually happened at the parts of the summit, with an emphasis on what was accomplished.--76.220.203.159 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I made some progress on trying to organize the info and removing a few "lecture" sections. The whole CS/DD thing is still lengthy, but at least now is most deals with what was actually expressed at the conference. It would be nice if those big pile of links at the bottom — at least the web articles if not the sites — could be folded into the text as references.--76.220.203.159 23:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleaned up WSIS+10 But More Needed[edit]

I've at least changed the tense of at least some of the content. I also removed some superlatives that didn't seem to have any support, and I removed a reference to a UN decision that so far as I can tell has not actually taken place (yet). This page should really be more concise, especially since the event has now taken place. Pigdog234 (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comments on cleanup[edit]

Here are the issues I see with the article:

  • Much of the material is poorly sourced, as has been previously indicated. One line that stands out as particularly egregious is the claim that many governments were concerned about antisemitism. I propose that this be supported or deleted.
  • There is substantial imbalance in the text. For some bizarre reason, APC is given substantial weight for an input document. I propose to remove much of that text, with some being moved under Internet governance and properly sourced.
  • The bloated discussion of WSIS prizes should be removed as it is noteworthy.
  • The section on "The Digital Divide" has at its outset an editorial tone. I propose that the entire preface of the section (up to but not including "Digital Divide and Digital Dilemma") be deleted as superfluous.
  • The section on Internet governance is given short shrift. In part this is due to poor organization, because components of Internet governance are mentioned elsewhere.

My suggestion is that the article be cleaned up in stages, towards better organization, more conciseness. If nobody objects I will begin with the above clean up over the next few days and weeks. Pigdog234 (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go for it. The changes you describe would be most welcome. A few suggestions:
  • I'd cut down the length of the section on WSIS prizes, but I would keep at least a little of it and include <refs> so that someone who is interested can go elsewhere to read more.
  • I think the discussion on the Digital Divide could be shortened even further than you suggest, moving some of it to other articles on the Digital Divide, if the material isn't already covered there, and leaving just enough to introduce the topic as one of concern to WSIS and as a place to locate wikilinks to more specific articles.
  • I'd limit the discussion of Internet governance to just the events, discussion, and decisions that occurred at WSIS. WSIS+10 seems to have deliberately largely avoided the issue of Internet governance, I assume leaving that to other forums or perhaps recognizing that the issue is controversial enough to hijack the rest of the WSIS agenda.
  • I think that the sub-section on the "Open Consultation Process" under "WSIS + 10" could be shortened substantially, perhaps even deleted or combined with the previous sub-section as a short statement that "eight open consultation meetings among stakeholders (governments, private sector, civil society, international organizations, and relevant regional organizations) were held between July 2013 and June 2014".
-Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yellow tickY Partly done. I made several of these changes. There is a lot more that could and should be done to clean this article up, but I'm finished for now. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UNGA review?[edit]

The UN General Assembly is going to be reviewing WSIS outcomes in its Fall session this year, but I'm having a hard time finding good sources on what this will entail. I'll keep looking, as this should definitely be in the article, but if anyone has ideas let me kno. TheBlueCanoe 15:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]