Talk:Sociology of the Internet

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

Fiction[edit]

The section on fiction, as seen here, has been removed, because: 1) it describes a few arbitrary selected works which mention the Internet (good perhaps as a Fiction section in the generic Internet article but with no relation to sociology) 2) it is unreferenced (the two references are simply to pages confirming the existence of the fiction work). In order for such a section to remain in the article it would need to specifically address the issue of fiction and the Internet from the sociological perspective, and have proper references to back it up (i.e. respect WP:V and avoid WP:OR). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many other articles have a section about "...in fiction". About things you say: 1) If you think there are few works, another can add more fiction works. 2) The main references are in the article about each work (ie: references to film The Net in article The Net and so on). All these works are about Internet in society.
95.120.159.57 (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "many other articles" - we have an argument here, other stuff exists - it doesn't mean it should :) More seriously, please look at this policy: Wikipedia:No original research. You will have to find references which say that those works are relevant to the sociology of the Internet. If you find ones that do confirm they are relevant to article on Internet in society, this is where you should add them (let's not confuse society and sociology). Or perhaps you may want to create an article on Internet in popular culture, or list of works about society and the Internet (although keep in mind that such topics have to confirm to another policy, Wikipedia:Notability). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sections of Data Emotions would go under data analysis its adds to the overall theme of that section. Also I think adding digital surveillance would be great under social impact headline. Spicedindigo (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC) spicedindigo[reply]

Culture[edit]

Seems like it would be good to have a section on internet culture. T.216.57|talk]]) 21:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Section or category on institutions that specialize in this area[edit]

This is one of those "that would be awesome" posts. A Google search with poor hits for university programs, for example, gives me the sense that this is strangely still an emerging field. See also Talk:Anthropology of cyberspace. Eekiv 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change article title to Sociology of Cyberspace[edit]

as that is the article's subject. See Cyberspace. 76.103.213.6 (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet criticism[edit]

There is nothing written here (or on the main article) on perceived negative consequences of internet use, such as addiction, alienation, etc. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC) In the internet criticism section, can there be information put in about children being introduced to technology at a young age and how that can cause a problem or something related to the positives outcomes technology can as well have? Article Evaluation: The information included in the article all relates to the topic of the article due to how it relates to sociologist's perspective on the use of technology. The article has no distractions and provides information that relates to each heading, making sure to not go out of topic. The article is neutral due to how it only contains facts and it avoids siding with either stopping the use of technology overall or continuing with supporting the use of technology. There is no apparent section in the article that appears biased due to how each paragraph is cited based off of the editors finding information that was reliable and making sure that they did not insert any of their own opinions when editing the article. There are no viewpoints that are over presented throughout the article, but there are some points that appear underrepresented. The viewpoint that seems underrepresented is the one concerning sociologist's perspective of the introduction of technology and at what age it is being introduced into the lives of people. The sociologist's perspective on the effects of the introduction of technology should be elaborated on more and what concerns the introduction of technology is causing should as well be discussed in further detail. The links input into the article for citation purposes work well and lead to the page in which the editor found the information at, which helps others out when they want to find the information themselves. The sources cited match the claim due to how the information found on the page it takes one to, relates to what was inserted into the article. The facts referenced through the article have an appropriate reliable source along with it that is not biased due to how the sources are scholarly sources and it does not have sources that have information that is all opinion based. If the sources used were opinion based, then the article would be considered an argumentative piece and not an article with only fact based information. The sources included are neutral in order to assure a perspective is not being selected over another and to make sure that only facts are being included and that any forms of opinions are being avoided. The information included in the article is not out of date and is related to technology based on when it was beginning to grow popular until today. Information that could be added to the article could be when sociologists first saw an increase in technology use and specifically who they viewed as using technology the most during that time. Other information that can be added is some explanation as to what the consequences of using technology are, when used for so long and if there is anything people need to avoid in order to not get consumed by technology. Overall, the article is presented in an organized form that has sections that contain information that are not opinion based and that is instead factually based in which it includes reliable sources that are correctly cited.[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sociology of the Internet. 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:

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) 15:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Digital sociology[edit]

I am, in fact, a professional sociologist who specializes in those fields, and I don't think there is a significant difference between those two concepts. Both are used to refer to the same field, IMHO. Now, I do know some may disagree ([1]) but I think there is no consensus in the academic literature those fields are indeed separate; for example Cole in her (blog?) linked above argues that the study of digital divide belongs to digital sociology and not sociology of the Internet, which is rather bizarre, as the concept of digital divide existed long before the more recent term 'digital sociology'; ditto for ' impact of ICTs'. In [2], a 2015 work, Deborah Lupton, a scholar who has done much to promote the term, writes in her book Digital Sociology that "Sociological research into computer technologies has attracted many different names, dispersed across multiple interests, including ‘cyber sociology’, ‘the sociology of the internet’, ‘e- sociology’, ‘the sociology of online communities’, ‘the sociology of social media’ and ‘the sociology of cyberculture’. When computer technologies fi rst began to be used widely, researchers often used the terms ‘information and communication technologies’ (ICTs) or ‘cyber technologies’ to describe them. The terms ‘digital’, ‘Web 2.0’ and ‘the internet’ have superseded that of the ‘cyber’ to a large extent in both the academic literature and popular culture. The term ‘digital’ is now frequently employed in both the popular media and the academic literature to describe the expanding array of material that has been rendered into digital formats and the technologies, devices and media that use these formats. As part of this general discursive move, ‘digital sociology’ is beginning to replace older terms. This change in terminology is consonant with other sub- disciplines that focus on digital technologies, including digital humanities, digital cultures, digital anthropology and digital geography." and I think she nailed it: it is one field with a bunch of synonyms; maybe digital sociology is becoming more common, but even if it is, those are not separate fields.

As for which name is popular: GScholar for "Sociology of the Internet": 475 hits, GBooks for the same, 57k. Digial sociology wins on scholar with GS 2+k hits but has only about 5k on GBooks: [3], but perhaps something is broken in the search, as Google ngram does suggest the digital term wins: [4]. Pure Google search goes to Sociology of the Internet (4m hits), with digital sociology getting only 80k: [5] vs [6]. As such I'd suggest merging digial sociology to the sociooogy of the internet, and mentioning that Lupton suggseted it is becoming more common place. Maybe we can update it in another 10 or 20 years and move it than if her prediction is correct.

Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - go ahead and do it as nobody else has commented Chidgk1 (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree Likeanechointheforest (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add Data and Data Emotions section Spicedindigo (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)spicedindigo Add Digital SurveillanceSpicedindigo (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)spicedindigo[reply]

Resp[edit]

Luizpuodzius querendo traduzir é só me avisar. 187.20.116.155 (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qual o problema com o artigo "Sociologia digital"? What is the problem with the article in Portuguese? Dr. LooTalk to me 17:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Bibliography section appropriate?[edit]

Originally, the Notes section contained the list of inline references and the References section contained a list of books not included in the inline citations. I renamed Notes as References and References as Bibliography.

It's a slight improvement, but the Bibliography section still doesn't seem quite right. Are there any recommendations about these types of sections? Do we usually keep, merge or delete them? LaTerreACotta (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaTerreACotta See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Further_reading and Wikipedia:Further reading Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
From what I gather, the current Bibliography section probably contains references not quoted inline.
Proposed next steps:
  • Remove from Bibliography documents already quoted inline
  • Rename Bibliography to Further reading
  • Remove non-generic references from Further reading
LaTerreACotta (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completed steps:
  • Remove from Bibliography documents already quoted inline
  • Rename Bibliography to Further reading
LaTerreACotta (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sociology_of_the_Internet&oldid=1207203306"