Talk:Digital nomad

Untitled

Sorry, but this whole article reads like ad copy.

This looks like a made-up definition for the external spam links. IMHO the correct term is [Global nomad] (186.15.75.118 (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spacefairy5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article improvement

User at 9 July 2013 claims without supporting facts that the term 'digital nomad' is fabricated, yet several of the supporting external pages are news articles & blog editorials that establish the term as being in common use, as well as a link to the individual who coined the term. The external page links are NOT spam. Therefore, I suggest that the {POV} tag be removed and replaced with a tag for {cleanup}.

I also suggest that those who are unfamiliar with this new social phenomenon watch the introductory video and read the accompanying article here: A Quick Intro to Technomadia.com 98.158.68.2 (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I am currently working on creating a new section for this article that focuses on "things to consider" in the digital nomadic lifestyle. Furthermore, I have added some information including paraphrases and citations to existing sections within the article. Spacefairy5 (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I am currently preparing to add new sections to this article. I have made a "things to consider" section, a "History" section, and a "destinations to reconsider" section within the existing "popularity" section. I plan to put my "history" section under the existing section "definition." I plan to put my "things to consider" section under the existing "popularity" section. Finally, I plan on putting my "destinations to reconsider" section within the existing "popularity" section under the "popular destinations" subsection. Spacefairy5 (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I am wondering why entire sections were recently removed from this article? The "history" and "things to consider" sections both had citations. Additionally, the "destinations to reconsider" section was backed up by citations. Spacefairy5 (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Spacefairy5

'Has citations' isn't the only criteria for Wikipedia content. Your additions were more of a howto or an essay written to give advice to people who are considering becoming nomads. That might be interesting, but it isn't an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTHOWTO for more. - MrOllie (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Much earlier known use is a book title from 1993

Powerbook: the digital nomad's guide. Everything the modern road warrior needs to turn the Macintosh powerbook into the complete mobile habitat.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/powerbook-the-digital-nomads-guide-everything-the-modern-road-warrior-needs-to-turn-the-macintosh-powerbook-into-the-complete-mobile-habitat/oclc/26974958

Udo Schmitz (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

search in metager.de with the search term:

"Digital Nomad" oder "digital nomad" "1993" "powerbook" -site:amazon.de -site:amazon.com -site:amazon.in

delivers

openlibrary.org/books/OL1735522M/Powerbook

Powerbook by Andrew Gore, 1993, Random House edition, in English.

{Here is the year directly visible}

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Search in metager.de with the searchterm: "Digital Nomad" "digital nomad" "1993" -site:amazon.de -site:amazon.com -site:amazon.in delivered (as the 21st result):

{Note: bolded by Steue}
Resources for Aspiring Digital Nomads — TRIXIE PACIS von Yahoo trixiepacis.com/resources/digital-nomad-resources are you an aspiring digital nomad? The term was first coined in 1993 by Andrew Gore and Mitch Ratcliffe. The duo wrote Random House guide books about…

ping welcome, Steue (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Technogypsie

I redirected Technogypsie to point here. There had been an article there which may have content that could be merged here. Daask (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Unknown whether before 1997 ??"

A simple search (I did it in metager.de) with:
"Digital Nomad" "1996"
{the quotation marks are supposed to ensure that *both* terms are part of each result.}
revealed, already as the first (non-commercial) result:
Kaplan C (1996) Questions of travel. Duke University Press, Durham. Book Google Scholar Kong D, Schlagwein D, Cecez-Kecmanovic (2019)

And a further "search *within* this domain" (again in metager) delivered:
The digital nomad – a mobile knowledge worker equipped with digital technologies to work “anytime, anywhere” (Kleinrock 1996),

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Digital nomad visas

Hey everyone! I began creating separate sections for country-specific digital nomad visas. The list still needs to be added to but is underway. I also agree with some previous comments that portions of the article read like ad copy, so this might need to be cleaned up in the future. Let me know your thoughts. CroissantAvenue (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Croissant Avenue

Pretty much this whole section is about visas for remote workers who are staying in *one* place but employed elsewhere rather than *nomads*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.152.252.252 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TsunamiSurfer777 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by TULIPMANETANE (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"Technogypsie" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Technogypsie has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 28 § Technogypsie until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

capitalization of "internet"

Having noticed some mixture of lower- and uppercase spellings of "internet" on this page, I wondered if Wikipedia has a set policy on the question. There is an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_of_Internet) that seems to favor "Internet," yet without explicitly commenting on Wikipedia's position (if there is one). Is there? I suggest that, as a matter of style, we at least have consistent use within a given page. What say we? Jorjulio (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any guidance in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computer science. I think it'd be fine to make it consistent within the article if you want. The article you linked has a chart that makes it look like it's about 50/50 in the wild, so flip a coin :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Legality

Regarding digital nomadism, I think most countries, except the USA, where there have been documented examples of vloggers, those planning to digital nomad from abroad being denied entry, since the pandemic certainly (I have heard anecedotal cases of NZ and the UK denying such entry before the pandemic but since the pandemic both countries have updated their interpretations of the law) ... I have never heard of examples of digital nomads/vloggers facing immigration trouble for simply.. and i say.. simply.. for there have been cases where there were clampdowns on coworking spaces in Thailand but this was because of activity in the local market not due to,., remote working on a tourist visa..

My theory is this comes down to the principle of lex loci contractus in many countries - law of place of contract - in contrast to lex loci laboris - law of place of work.. which says that since there is no employer-employee relationship in the country or permanent establishment, the country lacks the jurisdiction to deem it local work in violation of immigration law

I must admit, i didn't really know wikipedia's rules and I carelessly updated the page without realising that you need a citation even for things you can't really directly cite but are common knowledge, can like can you cite an absence of something? Maybe it comes to my uni/school trainings to use "prior knowledge" or "common knowledge" as a source itself this misunderstanding with wikipedia's terms

It will be difficult to prove a global consensus on this because most people who talk about "grey areas" do it on reddit threads for that specific country... but is it really a grey area? If I have read no - I have a legal theory as to why it may be straight up legal, not a grey area, lex loci contractus

You do need a BPO outsourcing/employer of record to hire employees in another country but when the contract/hire was done in the home country and you are temporarily visiting another country, does this apply.. seems not

Thoughts? 82.36.175.68 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: add global digital nomad population and spending estimate

Disclosure: I'm Carlos Grider, author of the Global Digital Nomad Study cited below. Per WP:COI I'm proposing this here rather than editing directly. Full account history is below.

The article currently states only U.S.-specific figures — "In 2023, there were 17.3 million American digital nomads, which was a 131% increase since 2019, and the number increased to 18.1 million in 2024." — with no global total anywhere in the article.

Proposed addition: Please add the following sentence immediately after the existing U.S.-specific figures sentence quoted above:

"Beyond U.S.-specific figures, an estimated 35 million digital nomads work worldwide, with an aggregate economic value of approximately $787 billion annually."

---

Sourcing rationale: The Global Digital Nomad Study's dataset, fieldwork, and 4,000+ response survey were substantially complete by March 2021, when the population and economic value estimates above — 35 million digital nomads with a $787 billion economic value — were first published. Analysis continued through January 2022 for the study's additional findings, which were compiled and published in 2025 as Appendix A of the book Digital Nomad Nation. The findings have since been independently cited by:

• Reuters / Thomson Reuters Foundation, "FEATURE Digital nomad hotspots grapple with housing squeeze" (27 September 2022): https://www.reuters.com/world/feature-digital-nomad-hotspots-grapple-with-housing-squeeze--trfn-2022-09-27/
• BBC Worklife, "Digital nomads have billions to spend. Entrepreneurs are cashing in." (2 October 2023): https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20231002-digital-nomads-have-billions-to-spend-entrepreneurs-are-cashing-in
• The World Bank, The Future of Pacific Tourism (report, November 2022), p. 40: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099717212222234209/pdf/P17759300db9a4040a5f008d04563e34d4.pdf
• World Economic Forum, "Spain could be the latest to offer digital nomad visas: What you need to know about this growing trend" (13 October 2022): https://www.weforum.org/stories/jobs-and-the-future-of-work/digital-nomads-remote-working-spain-trend/
• Global Finance Magazine, "Latin America: Welcoming Digital Nomads" (5 March 2024): https://gfmag.com/economics-policy-regulation/latin-america-digital-nomads/
• The Nation (Thailand), "Thailand ranks high in the world of digital nomads" (25 October 2022): https://www.nationthailand.com/thailand/tourism/40021375
• The Japan Times, "Japan's digital nomad visas to require ¥10 million in income" (2 February 2024): https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/02/02/japan/society/digital-nomad-visa-march/

Each outlet sourced the figures directly from this research and cited the statistics in its own words:

• Reuters: "the global nomadic workforce tops 35 million, according to a recent estimate by the ABrotherAbroad.com site"
• BBC: "One 2023 survey conducted by travel writer Carlos Grider estimates digital nomads contribute $787bn to the global economy annually"
• World Bank: "estimates indicate that there are 35 million global digital nomads with 83 percent being self-employed and 17 percent remote workers (A Brother Abroad, 2022)"
• The Nation (Thailand): "Here are some statistics of DNs in 2022 (Information from 'A brother Abroad')... There are over 35 million DNs across the globe... The DN community's economic value is estimated at $787 billion per year"
• The Japan Times: "There are currently over 35 million digital nomads around the world, with a collective economic value of $787 billion, according to U.S. travel information website A Brother Abroad"

See WP:SPS regarding self-published expert sources with an established record of independent pickup. The webpage cited above presents a public summary of the findings and statistics from the Global Digital Nomad Study, including the statistics in the proposed additional text; the complete methodology and full dataset appear only in Appendix A of the book Digital Nomad Nation (2025).

Account history, for full transparency: This account has been registered since 2018; my only edits prior to 2021 were two minor, unrelated edits — a response to a citation request and a fix for a broken link (Namche Bazaar and Tenzing-Hillary Airport). In 2021 I added citations from this research directly to this article without disclosing the conflict of interest; those edits were reverted as self-promotional, which was a fair assumption given how the edits were made. I'm returning now to do this the right way, with the conflict disclosed up front and the decision left to an uninvolved editor.

Happy to discuss placement, wording, or sourcing.

Carlosgrider (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

References

I'm afraid that 'A Brother Abroad' does not meet our sourcing requirements as explained at WP:RS - as you were informed on your user talk page a few years ago. We can't use this. 'Self-published expert sources' is an exception for folks who are frequently published in reliable outlets, not for people who get mentioned or quoted occasionally. MrOllie (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thanks for the specific policy point. I want to address it directly rather than argue past it, and I think a closer look at WP:SPS actually points to a broader issue with this article's sourcing than just my proposed addition.

WP:SPS's expert exception reads: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That is the specific bar - the expert's own work has to have run as content inside a reliable outlet, not merely been reported on or cited by one. By that standard, my research's citations (Reuters, BBC, the World Bank, WEF, Global Finance Magazine, The Nation, The Japan Times) are coverage of the Global Digital Nomad Study's findings, not publication of my work by those outlets. If that is how the Wikipedia standard is interpreted, I don't think that distinction should be disregarded. I do have a byline that clears the "published by a reliable third-party outlet" bar directly: Harper's Magazine's editorial staff selected and republished my writing under my name in their Readings section ("Roth to Flame," April 2026: https://harpers.org/archive/2026/04/roth-to-flame-financial-independence/). That piece is on broader financial independence, the field I work in professionally as a financial planner for nomads and expats, rather than digital nomad demographics specifically, so I'll leave it to others to weigh how much that should count here.

But the same "cited by, not published by" gap applies to the Wikipedia article's other population statistics. Refs 7–9 attribute "17.3 million American digital nomads... 18.1 million in 2024" to MBO Partners' own self-published State of Independence report, with ref 9 (Afar) presented alongside as if it's additional support. But Afar's own in article text reads "...18.1 million in 2024, per MBO Partners 2024 Digital Nomads report." That's Afar attributing the figure to MBO Partners, not independently verifying it, the same "outlet reports a number and names its source" pattern as Reuters and BBC did with mine. So refs 7–9 aren't three sources for this claim; they're one claim (MBO Partners') restated once. MBO Partners' findings have also been reported the same way by outlets like Forbes over several years, again, coverage of their report, not their work published inside Forbes. Neither my study nor MBO Partners has literally cleared the "published by" bar for this subject matter. If that bar is being enforced against me, it should be enforced the same way here for all sources.

There's also a second, separate problem with using MBO Partners under this exception at all: the WP:SPS clause is written around an individual, "an established expert," not a corporation. MBO Partners is a company; there's no named individual whose personal expertise is being vouched for or can be validated, which raises the basic question of which individual is supposed to be the "established expert" in that citation. Without an answer to that, this isn't really a case of applying the expert exception at all. It's a self-published primary source from a party with a direct commercial interest (MBO Partners sells services to the exact workforce it's surveying, and benefits from portraying that workforce as large and growing) being stated as plain, unattributed fact. That's arguably a more basic sourcing problem than the expert-exception question.

The same pattern shows up elsewhere in the article's sourcing for factual claims, not just statistics: ref 86 (Envoy Global, a relocation-services company) and ref 84 (N26, a bank) are cited as the sourcing for what Canadian and German immigration law actually requires. Under WP:QS ("Questionable sources"), sources with an apparent conflict of interest or that are promotional in nature "should only be used as sources for material on themselves... They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." Both companies have an obvious commercial interest in the digital-nomad-visa subject matter, and neither is being cited for a claim about itself. They're being used as the sourcing for third-party government immigration requirements and regulations.

I'd like to see one consistent standard applied here of independent, disinterested, reputable sourcing, applied the same way regardless of who's proposing the edit. That likely means the MBO Partners statistic should be reviewed and either removed, re-sourced, or given in-text attribution rather than stated as fact, and the Envoy Global/N26 citations should probably be replaced with official or independent sourcing. Happy to take any of this to WP:RSN for outside input.

Carlosgrider (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Kindly have a look at WP:AITALK and write only in your own words from now on. MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Absolutely. I'll simplify to avoid any AI tagged shortcuts ro assumptions. WP:SPS's expert exception reads: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I've copied that directly from Wikipedia to avoid any issues.

By that bar, the source I've recommended for the digital nomad population statistic and estimated annual economic value, though cited by BBC, Reuters, the World Bank, and several others, do not meet that bar as the data has been cited by those outlets, not published as a native article by those outlets. I am acknowledging that and saying that if this is the interpretation of Wikipedia policies, it shouldn't be disregarded. And this policy should apply to the entire article and sources within if it is being interpreted and applied this way.

Refs 7–9 attribute "17.3 million American digital nomads... 18.1 million in 2024" to MBO Partners' own self-published State of Independence report, do not pass this bar of "previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Their study, that is annual and cited on this page multiple times, is published nowhere but on their own website. It is cited by Forbes and other respected outlets, but only cited, not published by, meaning this source does not pass the WP:SPS you are applying. Additionally, the ref 9 (Afar) citation is for an article that actually quotes the same MBO Partner's studied quoted in the same line. That doesn't clear the the SPS bar and arguably makes it a low quality source at best.

Beyond the "published by reliable third-party publications," MBO partners is a company publishing the annual reports as self interested marketing material, not an individual expert which the spirit of the WP:SPS rule is intended to cover. There is no single individual expert whose history, training, publishing history, or byline history you can verify. It is a company producing inbound marketing material as a self published annual report. The issue is, there is no identifiable expert and this is clearly a "self published source," meaning the citation fails on two fronts.

Additionally, other citations in the article fail to meet wikipedia guidelines. Ref 86 (Envoy Global, a relocation-services company) and ref 84 (N26, a bank) are both used as sources for immigration law, while both citations link back to company blogs that are clearly marketing for the companies whose websites they exist on. According to WP:QS these company blogs should not stand in as sources for Canadian and German government immigration policy websites as sources.

As stated above, if the standard is the Wikipedia standard, that is great. However, all of the citations and sources should be held to that same standard. In this case the standards are WP:SPS and WP:QS and likely mean a review or removal and replace of the MBO Partners statistics as well as the Afar Citations, and the N26 and Envoy Global citations.

And again, if you prefer, we can take this to WP:RSN for an outside, impartial review. Which may be best.

Carlosgrider (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

That's pretty clearly AI again. No one is here to correspond with chatbots. MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Potential source for UAE digital nomad costs

The United Arab Emirates section currently discusses Dubai's remote-work visa and its income requirement, but does not provide any information about the actual cost of living for remote workers in the UAE.

I would like to suggest a potential source for consideration if editors think cost information would improve this section. The City Theory published a UAE Digital Nomad Cost Index comparing estimated monthly costs across six emirates/cities, including housing, groceries, eating out, transport, mobile service, home internet and coworking.

Source: <<link redacted>>

One possible addition to the UAE section could be a brief statement about how living costs for remote workers vary substantially between Dubai and less expensive UAE locations. I am deliberately not proposing exact wording or adding the citation myself because I have a conflict of interest.

COI disclosure: I am the founder/editor of The City Theory. I am therefore submitting the source here for independent editors to evaluate rather than editing the article directly. If the source does not meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, I completely understand. Anna dxb (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reliability requirements are not met, no. We can't use your self published site as a citation. - MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)