Talk:Social networking service

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

social media[edit]

Social media can be defined as “the media that allows one to be social, or get social online by sharing content, news and photos with other people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracememe (talkcontribs) 16:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have ply blue whale Biki thangjam (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is true but what is also true is that kids find things that are much bigger for their age on social media. Marshall Leezy (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality of section "Breaking up"[edit]

I have a few concerns about the neutrality of this section. The first sentence begins neutrally enough, introducing the phenomenon of online breakups while appropriately leaving the evidence to the later sentences; however, after the first comma, we have a non-neutral argument: "proving that although new media is being used as a tool for connecting with individuals, it is now creating new problems associated with disconnecting from others." The suggestion that anything is "proved" seems to me inappropriate for Wikipedia, especially when no evidence has (yet) been provided to back up that statement. The paragraph goes on to say that "people are now starting to end relationships by simply changing their relationship status" (whether that's adequately supported is another story) and that "The problem with that is that you are left with no closure and the entire online world now knows you are no longer in a relationship." Seems more like this section is trying to participate in the debate than describe it. I could go on, but the whole section is like this, and it would take too long to track down all the examples. Would love some opinions about whether/how the section might be salvaged. I think it could be OK if we explicitly mention commentators who have made the points in this section, remove or replace the hypothetical second-person language, include some opposing viewpoints, and emphasize the statistics/studies. Wham Bam Rock II (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The map is incorrect w/r/t Korea. No one uses qzone, and the map's source (Alexa) doesn't even have qzone listed among korea's most popular websites 2600:1700:AD80:8F20:F176:DC4F:7BD5:37D0 (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map Most popular social networking sites by country out of date[edit]

Graphic is out of date. [1]
And in my opinion, even the date that is mentioned was not true. The Netherlands and Germany certainly did not have the most popular Vkontakte network. Russia's social network most popular in Western democracies? It's probably an oxymoron.

A functional and true source that would prove such a thing? Mr.martin.prokop (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Proposed merge of Social media with Social networking service[edit]

The difference between a social media website and a social networking service is not made clear in these articles, and if it does exist at all, it doesn't seem important enough to warrant a split. Fundamentally, this is a gigantic redundant content fork, and it'd be better presented in a single article. Courtesy pinging Volteer1 and Enterprisey, who discussed this on Discord a few days ago. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Weak oppose. I agree with everything written there. I don't think there's enough difference between the two that keeping them separate serves readers. Pinging in everybody from Special:Permalink/1049448746#Merge proposal: Buffaboy, Jaobar, and MarqFJA87. Jaobar said he was happy to discuss this further so I'd be interested in what he has to say about what difference exists between the two in the popular mind. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (re-ping due to rename: Dekema) Enterprisey (talk!) 06:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Switching to oppose. I have been convinced by the arguments below. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Media and networking are different concepts, at least in marketing. A medium is used to broadcast a message to a wide audience, such as an advertisement or PR piece. Networking is about building relationships among members of a network and messages passed are specific from one member to another. Social media and social networking can coexist on the same platform. For instance on Facebook a company can broadcast ads to a wide audience, but members can also communicate with each other, forming a network. Viral campaigns use both mechanisms: media are used inject a message into a community, such as a corporate tweet and networking is used to amplify that message, such as through retweets and linking. I don't think anyone in Web marketing would ever confuse social media with social networking. Facebook supports social networking on their platform, but makes money on the social media broadcast to a captive audience on that platform. Their coexistence on various platforms may cause confusion among lay people. But confusion among lay people is not a strong argument for merging. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 08:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, I think I get it. Thank you for the explanation. As I'm not an expert in the field, I think I rather need to think about this a bunch more before replying further. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Social media is mainly about Web 2.0 and the advantages and disadvantages of User-generated content. Social networking service is a much broader concept. The merged article would be too long and unmanageable. The Social networking service article may be shortened by trimming down the discussion of social media and adding a hatnote referring to the Social media article. Agnerf (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Agnerf (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as I believe that both of these topics can be explained and differentiated in one article. Although social media may concern itself with Web 2.0, they are all social networking services. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Hi everyone, apologies for taking a while to reply. I maintain what I said previously. The concepts likely still have distinct audiences, which is in part, perhaps due to differences in the literature. As you may know, there is a social networking literature that precedes Web 2.0. Something else to consider, yes, Facebook is both social media and SNS; however, Facebook and similar apps and websites are referred to as stand-alone services. There is also built-in social media functionality. This distinction complicates distinctions between what might be referred to as social media or SNS. Happy to discuss this further. --Jaobar (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: To those opposing @Mark viking, Agnerf, and Jaobar: I'd encourage you to edit the articles to attempt to articulate the difference between the concepts. You've laid out a bunch of possible distinctions, not all of which agree with each other or with the articles as presently written. The current lead of social media doesn't even link to social networking service. I'd also remind everyone that the existence of some difference in the terms does not necessarily mean that we ought to have two separate articles. Forking essentially doubles the editing workload, which is a huge cost to bear unless it's absolutely necessary. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree with this. As an example, one low-hanging fruit is the Definition section. It essentially duplicates the 4-point definition from the social media article and cites an article defining social media, not social networking services in general (Obar, Jonathan A.; Wildman, Steve (October 2015). "Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue".)
    I feel like there is a distinction between SNS and social media (ex: maybe MMORGS are SNS but not social media), but I'd like to see more development of this distinction in the article. Quohx (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: Ibid what Jaobar said. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]