Talk:Deep web

	This Internet related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Cover story

Covers the deep web, a concept which is poorly understood in the media and on the Internet in general. This article deconstructs what this "deep web" is and how it is understood.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 00:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Strong no.

The article feels fragmented and incomplete. You have a section on the term's evolution, bam. You have a section on alleged characteristics of deep web content, bam. You have a side-by-side of a meme, bam. You have the one actually useful breakdown of deep web content as a right-aligned table, bam.

The fun pages are good ideas with poor execution: Fun:Tor should be reworked, made less cringy, and merged in. Fun:Derp web adventure is not bad.

If the thesis of the article is that the deep web is not a threat, is mostly filled with spam and unused sites, and the remaining "legal" services are mostly the same as the surface web, I come away unconvinced.

This is in addition to the numerous examples of bad formatting and bad linking.

Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 11:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hm, *rubs temples*. So how are we going to fix this? Does starting over sound best?—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 17:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

For one, we need to massively grow the coverage of myths about the DW. Making the case for what the DW actually is becomes a toothless and dry Wikipedian exercise unless accompanied by a wide and rich exposé of what the cranks have popularized the term to mean (and why each respective crank claim is false). At RW, we don't say what things are, so much as say what they aren't. Take the following example Gold quality article from which to draw inspiration. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and say that I originally made the article started along that way... and then Deku-shrub whined and said the article shouldn't be about the bullshit and confusion, but should focus more on terminology and linguistics, in other words, like a Wikipedia article. The user was a PITA. From now on, I propose we just ignore anything he says about the article unless it’s about information accuracy.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 17:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about all that... What's certain, however, is that we're not Wikipedia — nor are we aiming to ever be. As such, I think we should totally focus more on the 'bullshit and confusion' — I mean, that's literally what we do. (duuh) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace, I fully suggest you re-add any material about crank ideas about the Deep Web.αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Made the article closer to what it was originally. More work still has to be done it seems.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 19:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

'Important' question

Somewhere around 25% of this article is an apparently face value debunking of a clearly satirical infographic. Why -- am I the only one missing an in-joke here? 92.40.249.221 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think someone wanted to show how rational they are, but missed several important details.--5.128.33.17 (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Revert

@User:CheeseburgerFace: Why did you revert my changes? The beginning did not explain the words, but only stated that "deep web" is often used to refer to the "dark web" (which is true, but misleading, since the true words describe strictly different things, strictly speaking). So I added the definitions of the two words, so that people can see what the article is about right at the beginning.

The section that I removed was mostly based on the assertion that the dark web consists of illegal contents and services and a list of "reputable" sources. The assertion that the dark web consists of illegal content and services is, in all courtesy, bogus, and the very dictionary.com article given as source contradicts this. The second source seems to be neither accessible nor archived. --178.3.129.172 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The "strictly" in "strictly different things" was an accident. --178.3.129.172 (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The beginning did not explain the words, but only stated that "deep web" is often used to refer to the "dark web" (which is true, but misleading, since the true words describe strictly different things, strictly speaking).

The reason why the intro is very vague about the definitions is because the definitions for these terms are so inconsistent and inaccurate. As a result, there's a dedicated section to how these terms are used, the first one.

So I added the definitions of the two words, so that people can see what the article is about right at the beginning.

Here's the issue: those definitions aren't even accurate portrayals of the internet. You don't have to use Tor Browser to access the "darknet" because there's tor2web. And the term darknet is misleading becuase Tor isn't filled with illegal content. As for the "deep web", this is Burgerman's original definition which has now been bastardized. People now think that Tor is part of the deep web.

The section that I removed was mostly based on the assertion that the dark web consists of illegal contents and services and a list of "reputable" sources. The assertion that the dark web consists of illegal content and services is, in all courtesy, bogus, and the very dictionary.com article given as source contradicts this. The second source seems to be neither accessible nor archived.

This wiki is dedicated on analyzing bullshit online. Albeit, the article news an improvment of analysis, that section was claiming those sources were wrong.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 21:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason why the intro is very vague about the definitions is because the definitions for these terms are so inconsistent and inaccurate. As a result, there's a dedicated section to how these terms are used, the first one.

Generally, the definitions "deep web" and "dark web" are pretty clear, and used, by reputable sources, in the same sense. Just look at the Wikipedia articles.

You don't have to use Tor Browser to access the "darknet" because there's tor2web.

Tor2web does count as special software here. It isn't much different whether you use an online service like it or an offline service like Tor. On the other side, you probably should leave the part with special software out. Overlay networks over the Internet always need special software.

And the term darknet is misleading becuase Tor isn't filled with illegal content.

How is that misleading? "darknet" doesn't imply that it is filled with illegal content.

[...] that section was claiming those sources were wrong.

It is not claiming that dictionary.com's blog and Bergman's original definition are wrong, but is relaying on them, and misrepresenting them (at least dictionary.com, since the other one seems to be not accessible). Even if was claiming that dictionary.com's blog was wrong, it would be erroneous, because dictionary.com's blog is right, and only misrepresented by the article:

According to dictionary.com's blog and Bergman’s originally definition,[2][3] the “deep web" consists of websites unindexed by search engines. On the other hand, the “dark web" consists of illegal content and services. Despite this, news and media outlets confuse the terms as the same thing.

Forgotten to sign: --178.3.129.172 (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

How are we misrepresenting the term? According to Bergman, the deep web is websites that don't appear in search engines. Unindexed websites are websites that don't show up in searches. How is this wrong?—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 02:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Only the second part, that the dark web, in contrast to the deep web, consists of illegal things, is wrong. It is not completely clear whether the source also applies to this part, but is appears so. However, this isn't really the point. The point is that the info is wrong. --178.3.129.172 (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the definition to include the word "supposedly".—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 16:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

If bad sources uses "deep web" and "dark web" as the same term, as the section writes, how does it make sense that, in contrast to the deep web, only the dark web supposedly consists only of illegal content? Good, one could say that the dark web is what the media actually means, but that is not really clear. The original author seems to have understood the word "dark web" wrong, so it is probably not a good idea to change as little as possible.

Also, my point that "deep web" and "dark web" are quite clearly defined and words should be explained in the introduction still stands. --178.3.129.172 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I moved the terminology explanation to the top.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 18:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Level 8 revealed

here and/or 'many other similar pages.'

What you will find at level 8 - the equivalent of plastic waste (possibly from Atlantis). Anna Livia (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

What would 'a more realistic' version of the diagram/table look like?

The 'generally accessible web (with very obscure corners)' would be top level - and what else? Anna Livia (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The whole "levels" thing is actually very unrealistic, but it does aid people in visualizing something. — Dysk (contribs) 11:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Deep web has some info on the content below the generally indexed web. But yeah it's not divided into levels. Deep web#Deep web in a nutshell is also somewhat accurate. --Annanoon (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Could there be a diagram or something on this page? My 'obscure corners' would be 'the WP reference and near-googlewhack topics etc' - and then there are 'the dubious aspects' and what else?

Would it be more accurate to say that there are 'degrees of difficulty of accessing' certain parts of the web? Anna Livia (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

And what is an 'overlay network'? Anna Livia (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Question 2

Following on from the above discussion: once the 'necessary programming' (which allows us to ask for rationalwiki directly and not 'some random jeraboam lump of alphabet soup, and ride spiders etc) and paywalls and equivalents, un-linked-to websites (whether or not Google-whacks)/obscure corners, and all the other things mentioned on the Wikipedia page are excluded, who actually would devise the necessary structures/programming etc?

Does anyone claim to be actually exploring the 'lower levels' of the internet - including 'The Fog' (not being the horror movie)? - and does the 'malignant AI/Reptilians/Roko's Basilisk' hide in Level 8? Anna Livia (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfunny

Recommend removing the unfunny stuff 2600:8806:0:C2:8C2B:F841:BF1A:9887 (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Life of the party John woo (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you consider unfunny? --151.188.137.191 (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)