Talk:Social networking service/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

This category is more specific than social software. But these things don't only do "social networking" (what networking isn't "social" anyway? that is a bad thing to link to), they do email and chat and blogs also. There's over 300 of them now, so it's time to have one article about their common features and problems.

Including the fact that few will survive their coming shakeout.

Computer networking is not social when machines share information with other machines in an automated way.Mamawrites 10:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking about either expanding this article with the social networking services that IBM and Micrcosoft are planning to sell to enterprise customers as well as adding some of the smaller niche software vendors; or, I would create an entirely new article. Being that these types are services are only a few months old, the issues I would of course have is that not much information is availabe besides corporate press releases. Any idea of what to reference besides bloggers of dubious credibility?

list of social neworks

can we have a list of social networks? possibled along with their size? Xah Lee 09:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I added a link to a list developing at YASNS. Mamawrites 10:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it is best to have it as a category, so that it would automatically updated as new pages about sites are added. Alex Kosorukoff 20:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bugy wass' here qee !!

Especially one mentioning Friendster. Wasn't it the first modern social networking site? --CKL —Preceding comment was added at 23:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Livejournal.com and bolt.com are necessary sections of social networking history. Homerspy (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we add viadeo to the global list?: viadeo.com is Linkedin's main competitor with 30 million members, strong presence in europe and emerging countries, 200 employees and 7 offices worldwide. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64H2IA20100518?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r5:c0.042283:b34119862:z0 Tks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julielaurent (talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There should be place of new popular upcoming social services in the list of social sites which help people to find and make friends online ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnvr22 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Source edit warnings

Hi. As is permissible with spam-vulnerable articles and lists in Wikipedia, I have inserted source edit warnings regarding external linking to the article main body and the "See also" section. If you believe this to be incorrect, please revert and drop me a line. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This does not include the recently added "References" section - as long as links are relevant to the information added in the body of the article of course. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, Refsworldlee. I think that the fairly recently introduced Google Buzz should put be on the list if one gets made. I guess it could be up for discussion whether it is a social network, but since it's the same concept as Twitter, I thought I should point it out. -- Ceylon Sapphire (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pee, oh, vee!

This is a massively opinionated turd. 66.51.146.139 19:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This article is no worse in that respect than many others contained within Wikipedia, in fact it is more substantial than most in content alone. I would suggest that it is in fact your POV which makes you decide to tag for neutrality without giving us specific examples of what you find as opinion. Your final descriptive noun summing up the article makes me think yours was a frivolous edit, and I am therefore removing the tag. If you would like to re-add the tag at a later date, please do so in tandem with a more fulfilling reason, and quote your objections. Alternatively, make the article NPOV yourself if it's a big issue. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Name-dropping, for want of a better description.

Hi. A few of the paragraphs in the article make reference to named social networking websites. This is fine as far as allowing one or two goes. For most of its time, just the most notable two have been quoted (far be it for me to name-drop them here!). However, especially in the lead-in, there are currently five. And I suspect there is a danger that the list might grow, as different editors decide to add their own personal favourite. We would end up with another smaller List of social networking websites, which would not be at all suitable.

I would like to gain consensus on this, and propose that NO examples be given in the lead-in, as they are not a qualification of the article title, which is what lead-ins are designed for (see Guide to writing better articles). I would also like to see an edit source warning (similar to the existing one about external links) to this effect, although I would understand if this was denied.

I will return to this page in 24 hours, hopefully there will be an opinion or two which will help us gauge whether there is consensus for this. However, if there is no response within 48 hours I will be bold and remove the examples. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 17:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No responses so far. I will return in 24 hours, and if there is no consensus by debate or discussion, I will make the above change. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse Leuko 21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
We have one endorsement, which establishes a very tenuous consensus of 2 to nought for the removal of the above. Consider it done. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) A side issue for this post might be to decide which are the most notable websites allowable as "such as" mentions. Until today, MySpace and Facebook were the only ones which consensus seemed to favour. However, a recent addition has been Bebo, and, given yesterday's news about its expansion, I for one don't feel it should be reverted. If any other editors have particular views on this, please post below. Indeed, if you feel more strongly about this than I, revert the addition. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW

A service is not software. A mass of software supporting a service is NOT identical with the service. Lycurgus 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Nowhere in the article is there mentioned the term "a mass of software supporting a service". A social network service must have software to be electronically transmittable, by definition. This fact exists in the lead-in to establish that incontrovertible necessity. The article does not promote one type of software used to achieve the service, or another, or indeed any specific software. If such entries are made into the article, they are removed as spam.
Perhaps I have missed your point, but I cannot read any other meaning into your post. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The current opening six words of the article identify/equate the service with it's supporting software. Software and service are both intangibles and both involve human labor along with other attributes/properties they may have in common, but they're hardly identical, even in the case of, e.g. WSDL, SOA, etc., let alone in this case. Lycurgus 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps ambiguity would be dispelled if the lead-in went something like this:
"A social network service focuses on the building and verifying of online social networks for communities of people who share interests and activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others, which necessitates the use of software."
Please let me know if this is more appropriate wording, and we can then introduce it on a very slim consensus. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 00:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Dunno about appropriate but at least that's factual rather than counterfactual. Lycurgus 10:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a yes. Ref (chew)(do) 11:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dangers of Social Network Service

A well-intentioned user has posted a link about this from a German blog, pointing out the surveillance dangers of Facebook, et al. The article it links to is smart and raises intelligent points. However, I am afraid, that as it stands, it doesn't meet the criteria for adding to Wikipedia. For one thing, it is Original Research. For another, it is Opinion. For a third, blogs are hardly ever accepted as valid authorities for Wikipedia. For a fourth, it violates WP:Crystal (WP is not a crystal ball), which urges editor to avoid speculating on the future (altho I personally agree with the speculation). For a fifth, the writer does not have English as a first language, and there are many mistakes in syntax. It must be recalled that Wikipedia tries to be an Encyclopedia, and not a collection of comments. Sometimes I wonder if this is the correct policy, but it is the policy. Hence, I suggest that the author seek authoritative documentation for his/her points, state briefly the surveillance dangers of Social Network Software, add a link to Criticism of Facebook which does this in more detail, and write these brief points in a less speculative way, with proper English. Bellagio99 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Not for established experienced editors, obviously, but for the benefit of the editor trying to insert their link to a (mainly bloggish) external reference, let's rewind to the basics of writing an article in Wikipedia.
You don't just throw into an article an external link to a valid facet of a subject. You insert into the article (at length) a neutral dissertation on the aspect of the subject you wish to introduce. You then back up that information with as many detailed sources as you can, either in print form i.e. books, papers, etc., or from the internet, in the form of clickable links. Merely to suddenly introduce a whole new section (incorrectly headed "Weblinks" - this should be "External links", and should appear below "Notes" or "References"), containing a hyperlink which does not relate to anything yet discussed in the article, is utter folly. The editor needs to go back, without reverting the removal of the section and link, and create the relevant content to explain the nature and drawbacks of "dangers of social networks" - THEN back that up with his link, preferably in the "References" section, as the current article does not yet need any external links as I see it.
I too seek to be helpful to editors in good faith. However, should edits turn out to be nothing more than linkspam placements, I am cynical enough to campaign long and hard for their removal.
The anon doing the editing appears to be on a non-fixed IP, so there is no guarantee that a post to their talk page will provide the necessary guidance, as the next time they connect to their ISP, they will have a different anon userIP and therefore a different talk page. Warnings about vandalism and spam can be posted on a case by case basis to these different talk pages.
Best wishes to all interested editors. Ref (chew)(do) 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Super-Nintendo?

Is the picture of a super-nintendo console related to social netowrk services? In any case, the pagination should be adjusted...

81.75.222.76 (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? What picture? There are no pictures in the article, as the subject is mostly theoretical and in any case dealt with by means of prose. Just for the record, there is no link between Super Nintendo and social network services. A Super Nintendo console is a piece of equipment, not a 'service' in the sense meant here. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 18:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Beefing up discussion of research in the area

FYI, I put a note on the Association of Internet Researchers e-list 19Feb08, asking for a broader base of contributions to the article, given the developing research in the area. It's had some payoff, with a few editors posting germane references, especially to the work of researcher/editor danah boyd. I would hope that some research findings get posted as well as references. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that (your note to AoIR and the edits to the article). The edits need some work but it's nice to see the info being brought into the article. I was disappointed when I looked the other day and didn't seen any mention of the recent special issue of JCMC. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Name Dropping (2) March 08

For some reason, this discussion started out of order -- higher in the page. I moved it to the end so we can easily find it and be sequential. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a proposal for another social network... it's called CareFlash and it's a medical social network. In my opinion, it's the best out there for a number of reasons. How about adding it to the list? Thanks. --Klostermankl (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any references establishing its notability? --ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, It had notability referenced by businesswire.com. There is/will be a wikipedia page. Check out CareFlash.com to check it out... it's good stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klostermankl (talk • contribs) 03:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A press release doesn't really establish notability... --ElKevbo (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is true Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline You would need more than a press release to create a Wikipedia article. You would be able to use industry review as a secondary source to establish notability. Igor Berger (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an independent notability source [1] requesting the article CareFlash to be undeleted to original to go through WP:AFD. Igor Berger (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The article still needs more work to establish notability as decided by consensus at deletion review. Please do not include an external link in Social network service. If the article CareFlash meets notability per Wikipedia you can add the article link to Social network services. Igor Berger (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has been restored to author's user space. User:Klostermankl/CareFlash. But I find it interesting and intriguing that the article in question went through some sort of deletion process in December 2007, it was marked CSD. But then it was kept with no refernces, that can be found, of a review and resolution. Looks like the CSD template was removed by User:Socialfly Special:Contributions/Socialfly, an original creator of this article, here And the article did not get to be deleted then but it has been properly deleted now. Igor Berger (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Social network service with Virtual community?

Oppose Both Social network service and Virtual community are articles that need help -- especially protection from link spam -- but they are not identical. There are many more kinds of virtual communities than social network services, and SNS such as Facebook are evolving into more than virtual communities. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Notwithstanding the preceding argument, if you attempt to merge the two articles, the new article will undoubtedly be too long (look at the relevant guideline regarding article length). It seems to me also that there is enough difference between the two concepts to warrant separate articles. Bear in mind that other "sprawling" articles tend to break off chunks into smaller articles of related subject matter (Main article: Suchandsuch - you must all have seen this from time to time). Trying to merge two articles of such great length is asking for logistical problems. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 01:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose They are very different. Social networking services contain virtual communities but are not communities in themselves. --Ogmamas (talk)

From my point of view, the articles are very similar. Can someone explain me what the differences are that should keep the pages separate (other than length)? Thank you.--Kozuch (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr/Ms Kozuch, I think they are fundamentally different, as I stated above, albeit with some overlap. The term "Virtual Community" has been around since the mid-1990s (if not earlier). It encompasses not only social network services (such as MyFace), but blogs, listservs, communities of practice, Usenet groups, BBS/Bulletin Board Services, etc. Virtual communities are group centered, in that all in a VC relate to each other in principle. Furthermore, many organizations have their own within-group virtual communities to discuss issues of interest.

By contrast, "social network services" describe individuals at the center of their personal networks: their friends, news, and tastes (musical, etc.). So the perspective is quite different. While such networks connect, they are still individual-centered.

Thank you for your question: it is only until I wrote this, that I took the time to think it through -- and I'm supposed to know something about the subject! Bellagio99 (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I fully support this explanation - there is a context difference at work, and I believe it is safer not to merge, given the new input. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging without declaration of intent?

Hi. Noted the recent introduction of social network aggregation into this article. If this is merely referencing towards the separated subject matter, through their obvious ties in the social network service sphere, then good. If the edit is intended to pre-empt an existing discussion on AfD of the sister subject, it's a bit previous. Allow the AfD to close before any further action please. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A Question on the inclusion of social networking sites that I don't find in the source listed

I'm completely new to wiki-ing so please go easy on me and let me know if I'm doing this wrong, but I have a question about a part of the intro section -- "Friendster, Orkut, CyWorld and Mixi in Asia and the Pacific Islands.[5]" When I clicked on the source (as referenced by the [5]) I was unable to find Mixi at all, and the only mention I found of CyWorld was in that it used the service run by ComScore. Neither was listed as a top social networking service in Asia.

Also, I question the use of this article as a reference for which sites are most popular in various parts of the world due to the fact that the heading of that specific chart explains that it is only referencing "Selected Social Networking Sites". That means it's a biased listing from the get-go.Barefootmeg (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2008

Dear Barefootmeg, You ask good questions. The informal policy has been that this article not become a list repository for the many 100s of social networking services out there. That's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory. Every week, there are editors who post the name, link and often some promo material about their favorite service. Often, it seems that they are the persons behind that service. (One indicator is that this is the only Wikipedia edit they have ever made.) All claim that their service is wonderful or fills a unique need.

For that reason, this article has evolved to be about social networking services in general, and not in particular. However, it does seem reasonable to give a few examples, such as MySpace, and that's what happened. For better or worse, the magazine article has been used as a criterion -- it was a responsible, evidence-based piece. You're now claiming that 2 other services got slipped into the article without being on the criterion list. If so, you could well edit them out. None of us "own" the article. We're just editors like you. But I do think that opening up the article to a huge list of services would open a can of worms.

Cheers, Bellagio99 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No Pitch Buzz?

Pitchbuzz.com is a social network and should have a page. It has members and is fully functional. I have made several attempts to create a page for the site but they are always deleted. Pitch Buzz should not continue to be over looked. Sorry if this is posted in the wrong place but a don't see a proper place to voice this problem.

Thank you,

Star788 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star788 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You might review various Wikipedia standards like those on neutrality and notability. That might help answer your concerns. -- Kyle Maxwell (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

social networking overtakes porn

According to a study, http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSSP31943720080916, social networking overtakes porn websites in traffic. Leftrightshook (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats madness :) I always thought porn would remain king forever Towel401 (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


This is also one of things Micheal Jordan uses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.38.206 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

♥CHECK LIST Touch it Bring it Pae it Watch it Turn it leave it STOP format it

Yup dun it all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.25.74 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bebo's debut

Bebo is cited as being one of the big three to emerge between 2002 and 2004. But the article on Bebo says it started in 2005. Anyone care to reconcile? I'm not feeling knowledgeable enough to take a stance. Editor B (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ownership?

I've moved this comment from an IP user to this talk page:

You do not own this page Bellagio99. You are always reverting good edits without good reason. Give someone else a chance, you are not the authority you know. -81.155.215.208 (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

My response. I edit this page a fair amount, but so do a bunch of other users. Please see the history page. Most of my edits are reverting less central social networking service, as there is another List site for these, and the community consensus has been to include here only those that are most widely-known to serve as examples and reference points. I also know something about the subject, fwiw. There is a lot of apparent self-promotion in what gets put on here, which I (and others) try to revert out. Agreed, that one person's spam is another person's meat, but unless specific objections are raised (which the IP User didn't do), then it is tough to discuss. Happy Chanukah to All (or whatever holiday you celebrate). Bellagio99 (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Business Applications Section

Why delete the section on Employer Review websites, under Business Applications? This provides an internal, non-biased, Wikipedia link to an area of interest to Wikipedia readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeysparrow (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 February 2009

I didn't remove the link completely this time. It's now in the "See also" section. Employer review websites are not so much social networking services as they are review aggregators. Dancter (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. Spikeysparrow (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Research on the social impact of social networking software" section

This section should be removed. The articles & book highlighted are arbitrary. If a particular piece of research has received independent coverage in a reliable source wrt its notability and contribution to our understanding of the "social impact", then we could include it. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Vkontakte.ru

vkontakte.ru is a CIS social network, #25 in Alexa's top 500. The site with the biggest data transfer size and most pages viewed in Europe (see http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/vkontakte.ru?site0=vkontakte.ru&site1=facebook.com&site2=twitter.com&y=p&z=1&h=300&w=470&c=1&u[]=vkontakte.ru&u[]=facebook.com&u[]=twitter.com&x=2009-03-20T09%3A29%3A02.000Z&check=www.alexa.com&signature=X5taKklH0wDaO3hBtOfry0fy30Q%3D&range=6m&size=Medium ). How comes it isn't even mentioned on English WP social networking page?:) FeelSunny (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Social network service

Is the vocabulary we use in this article a little odd? The most common term is "social networking site," I think, not "social network service," and "social networking" in general, not "social network." Does anyone mind if I change this? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am also a little bit bothered by using the term "social network", but actually I do not know exactly which term I should use ('social networking' looks better, but I would suggest to look at references about what is the current practice). On the other hand I tend to disagree with using 'site' instead of 'service'. Indeed 'site' refers to me to a web site only. A service may refer to the use of other tools to interact, such as mobile devices, special clients (such as in Twitter). In particular we can really well imagine that a same SNS can be accessed using different means, and not only via a web site. Regards. --Nabeth (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Other suggestion: Online social networking. --Nabeth (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
How about just leaving it as "social networking"? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Because social networking refers to the process of interacting with others even in the off-line world. If I am not wrong, we are using this page here to refer to services (FaceBooks, LinkedIn) that are used to support the social networking process? We could even imagine to have another page: social networking (if someone, such as a sociologist, want to write this page?). To finish, why not just to rename this page: social networking service (SNS)? Indeed, it is used already even in the article. On the other hand, the term social network service is used in the following reference: Boyd, Danah and Ellison, Nicole. "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, volume 13, issue 1, November 2007. But I can see that other references use the term 'social networking'. --Nabeth (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"Social networking service" and "social network service" get very few hits. "Social networking site" gets over seven million. (Are there any that don't involve a website, even if you can send texts to it via your phone?) We should have either that or "social networking" on its own. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, indeed getting the number of hits provides an indicator. I agree with you that probably all social networking web site has a web site. However, a web site is just an intrument. I imagine that in the future we will many different ways to deliver the service (for instance with special clients such as Twitter or Skype, or in mobile devices). Of course, using the term site instead of service could be done here, but it kind of refer to the tool (the web site) instead of the process (the service). This is why I prefered the last term, since less associated to the instrument (a web site). Anyway, chosing one term or another is acceptable, since it refers to the same thing, and do not create confusion. --Nabeth (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Educational applications section

I suggest considering mentioning Fronter.com (also called Classfronter) in this section. It seems, by the way, that Fronter is not mentioned at all in Wikipedia.

Also, this section links to a deleted page, namely "Socio-Academic Networks". The log at that deleted page says:

* 16:07, 26 June 2009 JamieS93 (talk | contribs) deleted "Socio-Academic Networks" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
* 03:11, 19 June 2009 RHaworth (talk | contribs) moved Socio-Academic Networks to Socio-academic network ‎

And the page "Socio-academic network" is also deleted, and shows this log:

* 16:06, 26 June 2009 JamieS93 (talk | contribs) deleted "Socio-academic network" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: neologism, unless refs are provided)

If that page linked to from the educational applications section is not supposed to exist, maybe the link pointing to it should be deleted or changed. -95.34.0.173 (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Social Network_ or Social Networking?

Is there a difference between the term "social network website" and social networking website"?

boyd (2006) makes a distinction:

  • social network websites: [sites] that allow people to list their relations and traverse the network through these connections
  • social networking websites: sites that allow people to meet new people

Has anybody else encountered such a difference? 91.37.223.186 (talk)

I believe all of them are more or less the same, and I do not believe this distinction is very useful. For the second definition, I do not use social networking but online community. See also above the section: Social network service. I personaly always have a problem deciding which term to use. SNS (social networking site or social networking service is often used). I also personally sometime use the term: Online social networking. --Nabeth (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Academic references. Use of the cite templates

I have started converting the academic references with the use of the citation templates. It helps to make it more readable. --Nabeth (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Impact on Socialization

I just put in the discussion page an entry that was added (not by me) and was removed (not by me).

I believe that covering risk to socialization is a good idea. However I also agree that this entry has different weaknesses such as

  • The content is about the use of the Internet and not the use of online social networking. Maybe this addition would have a better place somewhere else (Internet, social web, digital native ?).
  • The phrasing in far from being perfect for Wikipedia, and the entry is looking a little bit like a personal opinion that would have found a reference afterward (confirmation bias). It could be interesting to have other references.
  • Note: I also believe that the conclusion should be double checked, since I remember to have read somewhere that the people that use online social networking are also the ones who do a lot of off line socialization. (but again this is something to be checked). Maybe it could be good also to see about addictions.



Impact on Socialization

Due to the increased use of social network services, there is going to be a decrease in offline social interactions. This is supported by the article "The Impact of Internet Use on Sociability: Time-Diary Findings" by Norman H. Nie and D. Sunshine Hillygus. In the article the conclusion that is given states:

Results from America’s first online time diary survey offer strong support for the “hydraulic” or displacement hypothesis—and no evidence to support the efficiency hypothesis. On average, the more time spent on the Internet at home the less time spent with friends, family and on social activities; in contrast, Internet use at work has little effect on sociability. Similarly, Internet use during the weekends is more strongly related to decreased time interacting and socializing than Internet use during weekdays, for it is during this time when Internet and email use competes most directly with time spent in face-to-face interactions with others. (11)

This goes to show that the more time a user spends on the Internet and social network services, the smaller amount of time they will be able to spend with family and friends.[2]

Maybe the author of this entry could comment here? --Nabeth (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Through various studies and research, a correlation between personalities and Internet use has been found. This is supported by the articles “Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use” and “The Influence of Shyness on the Use of Facebook in an Undergraduate Sample” both by the Department of Psychology in the University of Windsor.

The first article used a Five-Factor Model and divided a person’s personality into five traits: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Past studies had shown that people with the trait of neuroticism, anxiety or distress, had a high interest in communicating through the Internet. Communicating this way is more anonymous through mediums such as chat rooms, which makes it easier to talk with others. Although people who are extroverts are greatly involved in social networks such as Facebook, it was mainly used to keep in touch with friends, share their opinions on various topics, and was not seen as an alternative to face-to-face communication. Additionally in the study, openness to experience was related to how social a person was online.

As expected, higher levels of Openness to Experience were associated with a greater tendency to be sociable through Facebook. Considering that those who are high on the trait of Openness to Experience are more likely to have a wide variety of interests and a willingness to pursue those interests through unusual means (Butt & Phillips, 2008), the ability to use Facebook tools such as commenting and Walls would seem to be a natural fit for those who are inherently curious.

The results of the study also showed that agreeableness and conscientiousness were not related to the amount of time spent on sites such as Facebook, however the authors believe this might change in future research conducted.

We anticipated that more agreeable individuals would have more online contact, but the results did not support this hypothesis. Additionally, we expected that Conscientiousness would be negatively related to Facebook in order to balance academic pursuits and requirements, but this was not a significant factor in any of the analyses. As such, both of these factors warrant attention in future research.

In essence, the results of this study show that people who have anxiety or are open to new experiences were the ones who were the most likely to spend more time on the computer socializing because it is more anonymous. It also gives you more control in what you post because you have time think about what you are going to say before you post pictures online or make a comment on someone’s wall. Although people who are extroverts or are outgoing use social networking sites a lot, they might be using them for different reasons such as sharing their thoughts about the latest news topics or discussing music.

The second article suggested that shyness was related to the use of social networking sites such as Facebook. The authors discuss computer-mediated communication (CMC) and how “anonymity, the bridging of physical distance, and perceived control of conversations” makes communication through the Internet appealing. Through the results of online questionnaires, it was found that shyness was significantly related to social networking sites and the time spent on them. People who are shy find sites such as Facebook appealing for communication, had less friends than people who were less shy, and spend more time on it than people who are more outgoing.

Such findings might be explained by the anonymity afforded by online communication, specifically, the removal of many of the verbal and nonverbal cues associated with face-to-face interactions… this anonymity may appeal to shy individuals, and therefore they appreciate the medium despite not using it to its full potential.

This means that people who are shy find the Internet as a great medium of communication because they are able to talk with others without being face-to-face, which makes it easier for them. Mccree49 (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Mccree49

I believe there is some matter here indeed related to socialization. Well I remember also that Danah Boyd has also worked on many of these issues. The article Online participation could also benefit on some input on the subject (there are already several articles on the subject). The question now is to see how to rephase all this in something shorter and better making use of the references (long quotes should be avoided), and to grow this article later on.

Maybe for a beginning: "The nature and the level of participation in online social networking have been correlated with the personality of the participants (and in particular the level of extraversion or of agreableness) [citation needed]. However recent studies have found personality factors were not as influential (ref to "Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use"). etc....

Note:

  • If you read the article, it indicates that they have not found an important correlation. It is very important that you double check that the contentof the article really support what you propose (note: It happened to me to jump too fast on conclusions, but I usually try to be carful on this).
  • I have corrected the urls which where behind the proxy of a University.

--Nabeth (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

---

I think there is a positive aspect to the impact of online social networking that should be (and probably will need to be) expanded in this article over time. Namely, this relates to the aspect of people staying in touch with their friends from grade school, high schol, and college throughout their lifetime. This kind of continuous contact with friends from the past did not take place until the advent of social networking. Some commentators have remarked that this is in fact returning us to our past, in the sense that in the past people did not move away from their hometowns, and thus stayed in touch with their school friends throughout their lifetimes. Online social networking is re-instituting the social support structures of the past that were lost when America became a mobile society and move away from the agrarian lifestyle. I suspect that the impact of this on society has been underestimated so far. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

danah boyd, not Danah Boyd

danah boyd has been listed in the reference list as Danah Boyd. It might seem a little fuzzy, but danah deliberately uses small characters only rather than a capital D and a capital B. I just thought it would be respectful to consider it. Why? http://www.danah.org/name.html Fyawnym (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've always been taught to capitalize names. However, Ms Boyd has decided to "trademark" her name, using lowercase, danah boyd. I see a mix of use in the article (mainly references). I think we should use the case presented in the source material. WikiWilliamP (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Dangerous?

What are the dangers of social networks? Can a Social Network such as Facebook that has information about me be hacked and the information seen by random people?Aladdin8444 (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. This has little to do with improving the article, but it's possible that a section on dangers should be here.
  2. Facebook's "privacy" policies seemed to, at least until recently, distribute all information to all people. (They still distribute it all to advertisers to determine interest in their (the advertisers) products.)
  3. Hacking is also possible, although I decline to state whether Facebook has been shown to be subject to hacks, per WP:BEANS.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Major revisions to "history" and "social impacts"

Ok, began a major rewrite of this article. There's a ton of awful writing, unnecessary lists (esp. now that list of social networking sites is up), poorly cited and unnecessary references, and just plain crap here. I have a strong feeling this article was originally an undergraduate research paper. Looking to shorten the article considerably, fix the overwhelming problems with the prose, and organize this into a more logical order.

My primary strategy will be to get the prose in order and slash irrelevant information, then work on re-ordering the sections, then to check the sources already cited - there are a lot of crap sources that are gonna go away in the "slashing" phase, anyway. So far, I've made it through "social impacts" from the top, and more changes will be made in coming days. Discuss reverts, plz. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

THX to IP for moving the talk... My bad. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work, DH. The article has had so many authors, and things have changed so much since it was originally posted, it became disjointed. Just wanted to say I appreciate the time you spent working on it. WikiWilliamP (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits to "Typical Structure: basics"

Chopped a lot of useless stuff from this section. There is now a lack of sources... I'll be working on that, but anyone can help. :) DigitalHoodoo (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Things that make you go hmmm...

It might be suggested that Wikipedia’s User pages collectively comprise a Social network service, and that the official Wikipedia disdain for, for example, Facebook, might be analogous to maintaining certain assertions as to the comparative chromaticity of certain small kitchen appliances used for boiling water in preparation for making tea or other beverages requiring hot water. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.42.212 (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It apparently has been said (see above), but should not influence articles unless some evidence is presented. (That being said, the comment should not have been blanked, as, if true, it would provide some evidence toward some text that might be in this article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I decided that, although arguably true, my comment may be deemed too heretical. Then again, why people are on Wikipedia, as compared to why people are on Facebook, certainly distinguishes the two. Hey, I'm only 42, and in my academic career, my having the temerity to study calculus before high school graduation was deemed heretical, so I know whereof I speak...er, write. 174.58.42.212 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The bigger issue is it's WP:OR and unsourced. Incidentally, Wikipedia is group of websites and doesn't (and can't) have an official disdain for anything. The WMF who agreed to work with Facebook in their efforts to include wikipedia content on Facebook community pages (something which FB could have done anyway provided they followed the terms of the licence) obviously don't have a disdain for Facebook. The en.wikipedia community has never reached consensus for any sort of disdain of Facebook, partially because no one has proposed it because it would be a nonsense proposal that will be quickly closed as not relevent to the community. However plenty of us use it and plenty of use would rather people use Facebook for social networking as it is a social networking site then wikipedia which is WP:not. In other words consensus could never be achieved even if such a proposal was ever made and wasn't quickly closed. So your comment is not so much 'heretical' as opposed to deeply flawed in the first instance, demonstrating the problem with OR. Perhaps there was a reason you were discouraged from taking calculus? Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A Criticism Section would be interesting

Many people think the whole social network thing is harmful, or a complete waste of time at least. 201.81.66.233 (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The ever-growing list of SNS sites

Would it be better to move that list of SNS sites out paragraph 2? It is constantly being modified then unmodified. It has become a source of adverts for less-than-mainstream SNS sites. WikiWilliamP (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Social network service → Social networking service — Common name. network networking. --Marcus Qwertyus 11:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Support: Social networking service sounds more natural. Based on the Google Books search results I assume this is not a cultural variation. –CWenger (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Diglo?

Diglo: Social Networking For Avid File-Sharers. I don't know. There are too many kinds of SNS. A good explanation of specialized varieties of SNS is needed. Like Diglo. Komitsuki (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Paper - "Motivating Newcomer Contribution in Social Network Sites"

A paper, Motivating Newcomer Contribution in Social Network Sites is referred to at Wikimedia Outreach. Its co-authorship with Facebook introduces WP:NPOV issues but it could still be useful as a reference. -- Trevj (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Emerging trends in social networking

I don´t understand why my contribution gets removed based on the argument of reliable sources. The references are several articles from some of the biggest technology news and blog sites which all write about the same trend. -- Michael_Thomsson (talk) 27 November 2011 (UTC)

New social networking navbox

We're putting together a new navbox called "Social networking". We have no idea what we're doing and would welcome some help organizing the groups.

Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See also

Can someone dfix the columns in See also". I would but not sure how. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Social Networks and Education

Good morning all, First, let us introduce ourself as the Gushue Masters Group 2012. Our intention is to edit the section on social networking service, specifically SNS and the relationship with education. This is a work in progress and we hope to have everything concluded regarding this topic by tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flovellmsvu (talk • contribs) 13:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As you have noticed, we have uploaded our material to the page and are in the process of creating links to other Wiki pages. References will be updated once this has been completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flovellmsvu (talk • contribs) 13:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Putting the finishing touches on our work this morning. Flovellmsvu (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_networking_service/Archives/2012&oldid=1048461597"