Talk:Cyberspace

Blockquotes

While some quotation from sources is OK, lifting whole blocks of text is surely not good and might infringe copyright. They need thinning IMHO. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC) MOS:BLOCKQUOTE

Wiki Education assignment: Engineering in the 21st Century - Section 002

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 3 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mwheel16, Pcoxx.

— Assignment last updated by E102Group7 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Refine the Lead Section of "Cyberspace"

I am addressing the Wikipedia community to propose a rethinking and revision of the introductory part of the article. The WP:LEAD on "Cyberspace" has several strengths but also notable weaknesses in clarity, structure, and precision. My critique aims to highlight these areas and suggest improvements. I am open to discussion and seek to enhance the article collaboratively.

Strengths

Comprehensive scope: The article covers multiple dimensions of cyberspace, from its technical foundations to cultural implications. It connects the term's historical evolution with its modern applications. Inclusion of key concepts: Terms like "cyberethics," "cybernauts," and recognition of cyberspace as part of national critical infrastructure add depth and demonstrate an awareness of the broader social and political landscape.

Critique

Lack of precision in definitions: The first sentence, "Cyberspace is an interconnected digital environment," is both vague and narrow. What exactly constitutes this "digital environment"? The phrase fails to clarify whether it refers to hardware, software, user interaction, or other components. Additionally, the description of the environment as solely "digital" is contradicted by later definitions from reputable sources. A more precise definition should reference the global scope of communication and information technology frameworks, explicitly citing networks, data flows, and electronic exchanges. Describing cyberspace as "a type of virtual world popularized with the rise of the Internet" is problematic. Cyberspace cannot be reduced to a "virtual world." Virtual worlds are often understood as intentionally simulated environments with specific goals and boundaries, whereas cyberspace transcends these limitations. This phrasing diminishes cyberspace's scale and infrastructural significance. Historical context and pop culture influence: Acknowledging the term's origin in science fiction is important, but the statement that cyberspace "entered popular culture from science fiction and the arts" lacks specificity. Mentioning works like William Gibson's Neuromancer would add clarity. The focus on pop culture should be secondary to cyberspace's technical and functional aspects, which should take precedence in an encyclopedic definition. Unfocused structure and redundancy: The article shifts between history, culture, and technical definitions without a clear thematic progression. The first paragraph alone moves from defining cyberspace to historical usage to current stakeholders, leading to an incoherent narrative. The historical development of the term (e.g., the rise in the 1990s) should be separated from its current usage by security professionals and strategists. The sentence describing cyberspace as "a notional environment" is repeated twice in slightly different forms, weakening the narrative flow without adding value. Overuse of jargon and ambiguous phrasing: The phrase "global network of interdependent information technology infrastructures, telecommunications networks, and computer processing systems" is overly convoluted. A simpler description like "the global network of IT systems and telecommunications" would be more accessible. Excessive jargon makes the text less readable without adding precision. Similarly, describing cyberspace as a "social experience" is broad and vague. Specificity is needed: which types of interactions, which platforms, and what is the nature of these exchanges? There is a more balanced way to convey this information in the WP:LEAD of such an important article. Absence of critical perspectives: The article would benefit from acknowledging the contentiousness of cyberspace as a concept. Many scholars, particularly in critical theory and social sciences, debate the use of "cyberspace" as an oversimplified metaphor for complex, often unequal digital ecosystems. Without this, the article risks presenting a homogenized, uncritical view of a vast and multifaceted domain. Confusion regarding key concepts: The discussion of "cyberethics" is underdeveloped. The assertion that there exists "a code of shared rules and ethics mutually beneficial for all" is overly idealistic, assuming a consensus that does not exist. In reality, digital spaces are fraught with conflicting ethical standards, particularly concerning privacy, surveillance, and intellectual property. Chip Morningstar's quote – disjointed placement: The placement of Chip Morningstar and F. Randall Farmer's perspective at the end feels disconnected from the broader discussion. While the choice of these particular authors to cite in the WP:LEAD is debatable, if their definition is crucial, it should be tied directly to the introduction of cyberspace. Their perspective on the social nature of cyberspace could be integrated earlier into the broader discussion of how individuals engage with the computer-facilitated communication realm.

Suggestions for Improvement

Refine and specify the definition: Introduce cyberspace as a global, distributed environment enabling communication and interaction via interconnected IT systems. Avoid cliché phrases like "virtual world" or "digital reality" and emphasize its role as a dynamic, real-time platform for electronic interactions. Streamline structure: Present the history and cultural context of cyberspace in a dedicated section following the formal definition. Separate technical aspects from sociocultural interpretations to improve clarity. Reduce redundancy: Eliminate repetitive phrases about cyberspace being "notional" or emphasizing its social aspect, and present core ideas effectively and concisely. Clarify and moderate the discussion of ethics: Acknowledge the diversity of ethical perspectives in cyberspace rather than portraying a uniform code of behavior. Integrate critical perspectives: Include scholarly critiques of cyberspace, recognizing its potential for both enabling freedom and reinforcing inequalities, to present a more balanced view. In summary, while the article contains valuable information, it requires sharper definitions, a more organized narrative, and critical engagement with the concept. The language should be precise, avoiding jargon and oversimplification, to properly reflect the complexity and scope of cyberspace.

I hope my perspective will help engage the community to collaboratively improve the article's introduction. Thank you for your attention. Professorincryptography (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)