Talk:Social network aggregation

Notability

Social Network Aggregation is a new trend in the Social Network Services Space. In Oct 2007 Social Thing got funded for $ 300 K as noted by Mashable. There are over 25 startups working in this area such as Spokeo, 8Hands, Profilefly. What is "not notable" about it? Is it the new author who is not notable because s/he is not "well known" in the existing network or a personal bias? Please give clear hard data to defend your point or suggest changes that will help the article remain. Thanks

Please follow the guidelines in building a WikiPedia article. Igor Berger (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this Wikipedia:Article Igor Berger (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Igor here - I had prodded it for similar reasons and the article really doesn't make any sense. It's a mix between a NN Neogolism, a company advertisement and external link article. I support deletion. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor I have used your suggestion and the article is now at User:Ujwaltickoo/Social Network Aggregation I hope that other contributors will help edit and improve the article. As far as Spawn Man's opinions about the article "not making sense" -- its his personal perspective. To the criticism that it is a company advertisement -- I have used text from my own blog -- giving Wikipedia the rights over the text I typed. If some other user can bring the same set of ideas from other source -- good! I am not interested in a pesonal ad or fight with a person but contributing an article which is important and I have given supporting data. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujwaltickoo (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not worry, he did not mean it. That is how things marked here. And I kknow what you are talking about because I hang out with Andy Beard. Just work on the article and it should be okay. Igor Berger (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, at least we know it's from a blog - I'll sleep easy tonight... ;) I was saying it didn't make sense to me and yes, it does sound like and advertisement with the "Why Social Network Aggregation?" shtick. As you said, my opinions are my own... No intention meant to be insulting - sorry if I came across that way. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better, guess a few people came around to fix it. Take a look what Andy Beard and IZEA have to say about this! And do not forget the aggregators like Bloglines.com, Mybloglog.com, and Technorati.com and a few others. This could be built into a real article. Igor Berger (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Folks, many Wikifolks hate blogs as sources -- there is a norm against it. They wouldn't know that Mashable is widely read. (I don't know about the "Biz" one.) So I suggest that you try to find some non-blogs sources about this, before someone else (certainly not me) proposes this article for deletion. A real danger. And I would put in Slashdot (not a blog) along with the "Biz" reference, as /. did cover the aggregation story. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Are there any reliable sources that can verify this is a notable phenomenon or business sector. Otherwise, this just seems like an essay describing some random phenomenon, that some people woudl like to aggregate their social networks. 128.36.147.198 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC) The whole "Why social network aggregation?" needs to go. Apparently Barry Wellman has a theory, and apparently users have mulitple social networking sites. so what. there's no verifiable information stating that this is why "social netowrk aggregation" exists. this is all conjecture and original research making some kind of connection ebtween these data points and the subject of this "article" 128.36.147.198 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why it's up for deletion. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:30, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• It's very real. I will find the reliable source and incorporate them. kgrr ^talk 19:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved from the article

I've moved the section below from the article in case anyone wants to rewrite it. --Pixelface (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, that section is a bit problematic and needs careful rewrite not to have it WP:OR and WP:SYN Igor Berger (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

the whole thing has a lot of OR and SYN issues. especially the blogs used as sources. If they are removed what is left? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Work Networks and ICTs

Have read at this and see what can be brought to this article. This is from Barry Wellman's article's page. What he is saying are the reasons for social network agregation. It is like the same reason that we are editors on Wikipedia. The need to socialize and share knowledge with others. Igor Berger (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And the information is despersed on different networks so we need to integrate it, by using ICQ etc., Igor Berger (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wellman's initial project ("Cavecat" which morphed into "Telepresence") was in collaboration with Ronald Baecker, Caroline Haythornthwaite, Marilyn Mantei, Gale Moore, and Janet Salaff. This effort in the early 1990s was done before the advent of the Internet, to use networked PCs for videoconferencing and computer supported collaborative work (CSCW). Caroline Haythornthwaite (for her dissertation and other works) and Wellman analyzed why computer scientists connect with each other -- online and offline. They discovered that friendships as well as collaborative work were prime movers of connectivity at work..

Wellman and Anabel Quan-Haase also studied whether such computer-supported work teams were supporting networked organizations, in which bureaucratic structure and physical proximity did not matter. Their research in one high-tech American organization -- heavily dependent on instant messaging and e-mail -- showed that the supposed ICT-driven transformation of work to networked organizations was only partially fulfilled in practice. The organizational constraints of departmental organization (including power) and physical proximity continued to play important roles. There were strong norms in the organization for when different communication media were used, with face-to-face contact intertwined with online contact.

References

Why social network aggregation?

The need for users to be a member of not just one but multiple social networks can be understood through Barry Wellman's concept of networked individualism. A Pew Internet report, "The Strength of Internet Ties" explains networked individualism well.

Rather than relying on a single community for social capital, individuals often must actively seek out a variety of appropriate people and resources for different situations establishing social solidarity

However, Wellman's research shows that multiple membership goes back to at least 1968, well before the development of the Internet.

external links for examples of aggregate sites?

Am I correct in thinking that external links in the aggregation example should be removed? More importantly, some of those additions don't seem notable enough to warrant a mention much less a direct link. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Social network aggregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622083248/http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/who_uses_social_networks_and_what_are_they_like_part_1.php to http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/who_uses_social_networks_and_what_are_they_like_part_1.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Modification for school project (March 2019)

We (AymericJAN_TPT & PierreBERNAT_TPT) are modifying this page for a school project. We try to make it as good as we can, please do not consider it as vandalism.

Paragraph needs editing

I've added a "Copy edit" template to the first paragraph in the Social network aggregators section. That first sentence isn't right, because the listed platforms (Twitter, etc) aren't social network activities. But I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to fix it.

Also, the phrase "trying to keep an eye on one's interests" doesn't sound right, stylistically. -- Doktor Züm (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The idiom that you reference could be eliminated for those aren't native readers. You could modify the paragraph to, "Social network aggregation platforms allow members to share social network posts from examples like Twitter, YouTube, Stumbleupon, Digg, or Delicious, with other major platforms. Content appears in real time to other members who subscribe to a particular community, eliminating the need to move from one social media network to another." Inomyabcs (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)