Talk:Social networking service/Archives/2017

unrelated to web

This article's lede claims "social networking services are Web 2.0 internet-based applications".

IRC clients are formally classified as "Category: Social Networking" and have existed since 1988 - years before WorldWideWeb. ICQ (1996) and all its spin-off IM clients like AIM, MSNMS, Skype, etc. is also classified as "Category: Social Networking". A lot of social networking has nothing to do with the web, and hasn't historically either. The obsession with cramming every possible protocol On Port 80 is pretty new.

Published software is subject to internal development prior to public release of a new version, obsoleting past versions. No organisation develops the world-wide web internally and subsequently releases a new version. The web is a heterogeneous aggregate of independently and organically growing or stagnating documents maintained by their divers administrators; it is not subject to versioning. "Web 2.0" is journalese jargon* at best and unencylopedic at worst. It is taking syntax familiar to the context of desktop programs and applying it incorrectly to distributed networks to mean "dynamically generated, not statically stored". To highlight its non-standard usage of versioning syntax it should be linked to Web 2.0 and wrapped in Scare quotes.

I propose changing the entry in the lede to "social networking services are Internet-based applications" to resolve these problems.101.175.23.8 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

suggestion

Well explained bullets make the reader understand the key points of the article, and it makes the article more organized and very clear. The article has decent information on the topic, and every word that is vague has an additional explanation to prevent misunderstanding.  It is nice that the article has all different kinds of  research to support the idea, but it is not reliable since it is stated like “according to a study in 2015.” It should provide more detailed information about the research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlohee (talk • contribs) 05:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I need some help

  hello，my friends,Iwant to have an account ,but I don't know how to creat an account, so, I am expecting someone help,thank you very much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.161.221.124 (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC) 

Special:CreateAccount It's as simple and optional as that. 121.217.107.241 (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Most Popular Sites Map Is Misleading

The image is misleading, because while it is correctly identified as showing the most popular "sites", this article is about social networking services in general, not only web sites. When considering the nature of this article, the use of data from Alexa is not appropriate for this reason: the map shows Twitter as being the most popular social networking "site" in Japan, but in reality the most popular social networking service in Japan is LINE with 68 million users in Japan compared to Twitter with 40 million (source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choruspebble (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Section about social capital and personal relationships

Hi @TaycirYAHMED TPT, I read your finding about the research of facebook. Can you please further explain the link between this research and social capital? And apart from the privacy and security effects, do you think it's abnormal to have fackebook friends that I don't know the name? I mean in today's society relations between people are much more diverse than how they were before the e-age. We can connect to someone on facebook because he/she is my friend in real life, an acquaintance I met once, or colleague whom I worked with. So is it really that facebook is only designed for real life friends? Or can you list some more evidences that indicate the negative effect of the abuse of friending on facebook.ChenWEI TPT (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @ChenWEI TPT: Thank you for the remarks and suggestions. I am working on adding more content related to the relationship between the study and social capital. Regarding you interrogation about whether it is normal to not know the name of one's Facebook friends: I personally think it is possible but here I am not stating my personal opinion I am just presenting facts. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be friends on social media platforms without someone I don't know in real life, but that is still a personal choice. Again thank you for pointing things and I am still working on the section to make it more useful regarding the effects of massively adding friends and the relation with social capital.

Hi @ElKevbo: I see you removed a section I added on the relationship between social media and social capital. I am actually studying different aspects of the effect of having many contacts on social media platform, particularly related to social capital. I think you are probably right and I should add my contribution to the section "Issues". I also wanted to point out that I used different studies to come up with these conclusions, yet I didn't add them as references, so that makes you kind of right again :) Thank you anyways! I am working on improving my contribution and I will add it to the section "Issues". Please feel free to give advice. Any help is much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaycirYAHMED TPT (talk • contribs) 10:34, June 21, 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. In general, if a topic is worth including in an encyclopedia article then it's best supported not by primary literature (e.g., individual studies) but by secondary or even tertiary literature (e.g., literature reviews, articles or books that summarize and synthesize a body of literature). That relieves Wikipedia editors from having to make tricky and problematic judgments about individual studies especially if an area of research is new, developing, or controversial. For example, instead of citing specific journal articles about individual studies we should instead be relying on something like Rainie & Wellman's 2012 book Networked: The New Social Operating System and similar (but perhaps newer) syntheses.

On this specific topic, I wonder if you might get anywhere if you go back to some of the seminal work in this area and using a tool (e.g., Google Scholar) that allows you to locate later publications that cite that study. In this case, I'd begin with the 2007 study that came out of Michigan State from Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe. It has many limitations - including a potential multicollinearity that I think has flown under the radar - but it has been influential and widely cited. ElKevbo (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. I will revisit this and try to enhance my contribution.

Modification for section social anxiety

Thanks to the remind of @Diannaa:, some more references are cited in the section 'social anxiety'. This section aims to introducing FoMO and FoBM in people's social life which I think are great concerns due to our more frequent and engaged online communication. Any comment or improvement is welcomed. : ) ChenWEI TPT (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The new version appears to be okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Depress

I will die Biki thangjam (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)