Talk:Social media

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


Contents

Social media definition[edit]

The current first sentence is not a sentence and doesn't make any sense. I would edit it but I don't even understand what they are trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtopf (talkcontribs) 14:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I propose on continuing using Kaplan's definition but rewording the introductory paragraph to better capture Kaplan's ideas.ErickS-NJITWILL (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC) [1]

After doing some more research, i also found a more basic definition on social media that could complement Kaplan's definition.ErickS-NJITWILL (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC) [2]

New post: I don't see any reason why any individual or individuals, especially those who wrote a definition in 2010, need to be credited by name in the first paragraph of Wikipedia with defining social media. Thousands of people defined it before Kaplan and Haenlein, nor do they have any particular name-recognition authority in the industry or beyond. They may be right or wrong, but adding their names as part of the definition is self-promotional and unnecessary. If anyone is to be credited by name in the definition, it should be the people who coined the term, like Tina Sharkey or Darrell Berry. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2010/12/09/who-coined-social-media-web-pioneers-compete-for-credit/ Also, the accusation up top that the article is US-centric is not accurate, as the article is full of European references, perhaps even oddly so (Europe is not known for building the top global social media platforms). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:107E:407E:752E:3268:9074:E06 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I read the section describing cyborgs. Very useful and informative strayed a little off topic talking about fake news Christopher.R.Phillips (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Classification of Social Media[edit]

I propose creating a special sub-topic for the classification of social media rather than fitting it under social media which also includes "Mobile Social Media" and "Patents". Mobile social media should be under "Classification of Social Media", and "Patents" should be under its own category.ErickS-NJITWILL (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am currently working on my thesis and noticed that the Kaplan's and Haenlein's classification for social media only has six types rather than seven. It doesn't list "social news networking". Instead of editing it I wanted to confirm this was correct as I only am able to access the full but older version and the abstract of the actual journal article through my school. I was hoping someone else had access to the full, up-to-date version so they could assess its accuracy. Pregxi (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Internet usage effects[edit]

There is data that dates back to 2009 and that is quite old. If the point of this section is of keeping data statistics relevant, i propose getting rid of old data in order to keep current ones.04:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)04:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErickS-NJITWILL (talkcontribs) I also think this would be a great topic to have its own article. There are several studies that would be beneficial to use on an article such as this one. Kamryngood (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)@Kamryngood(talk) 10:38, 11 February 2018

A proposal to fix buzzword bingo land[edit]

Currently, the article is in a dreadful state. It is pretty much unreadable at the moment. The presence of a warning label on the Criticism and Controversy section is quite amusing, given that it is now the most readable part of the article.

I've removed the "Economic impacts of social marketing" section because it was unreadable, a lot of original research and didn't fit into the article at all. Of course, useful bits can still be salvaged from that if we want to. I also pruned a few other bits back that were either too promotional or unreadable dross.

What I'm going to suggest is that we can fix a lot of the issues of this article if we have a think on the talk page about what exactly are good sources for this. I think part of the problem we have with this article is that nobody really is very sure about what social media is. Instead, it might be better if we reflect that uncertainty by writing something like this in the lead:

Social media is a term used in marketing, public relations and a variety of other fields to describe changes in the media environment stemming from increasing use of social networking sites, user generated content, and a range of new interactive services. Social media is of particular interest in marketing as it allows businesses to interact and engage directly with individual customers and is increasingly seen as an important part of a marketing strategy.

Does this seem a reasonable starting point for a description? Obviously, it'd be necessary to sort out sourcing. One potential way of finding good sources for this article is government sources. Governments often have a statutory or policy-based reason to have to explain things clearly (otherwise groups like the Plain English Campaign will come down on them like a ton of bricks). Here are a few government sources I've found which might be useful: US Geological Survey, CDC (the Health Communicator's Social Media Toolkit might be a useful source), HowTo.gov, Business Link (Business Link is a UK government body that gives advice to businesses of all kinds), idea.gov.uk (who advice local government on best practice).

On the private side, there's also IAB UK's social media guide, which doesn't look like it is particularly bullshitty or unclear.

Anyway, I wanted to start a conversation here about how best to improve this article, because it currently gets between 2,000 and 6,000 views a day... and, frankly, it's pretty crappy. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that the article is a mess and needs massive changes. But disagree that your definition is the right starting point. You've have come from it a POV that says social media is what those marketing types do. Looking at the article, i see information from the technology, academic and human behavioural viewpoints. So from one perspective, social media IS SNS, UGC etc, it's the tech, rather than how marketers use it. I think the articel does need to reflect the term is used differently depending on who is using it. Yes, marketing is a major area of use - and the IAB book is a very good source for that, but there are others Rachelcgen (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Upon first reading through this article, the greatest problem I saw with it is that it looks at social media very disproportionately through a business-centric lens. The only example of use under the Purpose section is a paragraph entirely about social media use by PR professionals. Following this, the entire Managing Social Media and "Building "social authority" and vanity" sections are completely focused on `firms' and `marketing', respectively. I think this article is not a fair and balanced representation of social media and is very slanted toward a business and marketing-type viewpoint. Allethrin (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Both last two editors have said basically the same thing. We might need some expert attention for this article, to show other aspects of this fenomenon that aren't exclusively business-related. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

After reading through the article, social media appears to be have a business focus stance. However, i believe is more important to polish up the definition of social media since for the most part this is what is being read by the visitors. While is important to provide examples of social media, examples should not be used as the primary means to define social media. >ErickS-NJITWILL (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, just read all the talk on this page, and I'm happy to help if I can. I've written three books on social media, have been a regular source for Bloomberg TV and other media, and have access to dozens of the top experts. I'm sure they would be willing to help too. I agree, this page is horrible- not only because of all the lingo and ideas, but also because it doesn't even accurately reflect the business/marketing/PR side of social media that I hear in regular discussions with other experts. What's more, social media is a rather contentious discipline, since it's so new, and there are several major different viewpoints on it. From my perspective, there are very different views from marketing people and PR people. And there are folks who mainly think of social media in terms of Twitter, and others who think of it mainly in terms of Facebook. I don't want to jump in and changeBriancarter73 (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC) anything- but happy to be a resource or to try to help organize a task force of published authors to help you guys if you want. bbcarter@gmail.com Briancarter73 (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, just read the above Talk remark from 2012 and see that no one has questioned its' bragging tone. So what if someone claims to have written 300 books on social media, has been a regular on BBC, ITV, CBS, RT or has access to untold number of the "top experts"? Should not any comments keep to the question being debated? For the comment about the business/marketing/PR side of social media is clearly at odds with general Talk concerns - that the article needs to show aspects social media that are not exclusively business-related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.106.42 (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Social Web Share Buttons.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Social Web Share Buttons.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 7 June 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Social Web Share Buttons.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Social Media & Loneliness[edit]

Anyone else think this topic is popular enough to get its own article? (We've come a long way since 2007...) Not sure what it would be titled: Social Media Loneliness? Digital Loneliness?

Whatever it is, it's bigger than just "criticism," because some do advocate for social media as an antidote to loneliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupuscule (talkcontribs) 11:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Then again, is it not in the (self)interest of certain social media outlets to present their product/s as 'an antidote to loneliness'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.105.37 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I also think this would be a good topic for its own article. What is the relationship between amount of time spent on social media and loneliness? Addisonronk (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)@Addisonronk(talk) 10:31, 11 February 2018

I agree that this is a great topic for its own article. Based on personal interest, I have started researching secondary sources for information on loneliness and social media in order to have enough material to write or edit an unbiased article about it. I am putting what I find in my sandbox. Romhilde (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Notable influencers section may be biased?[edit]

I am no expert on social media but the recently added section titled "Notable influencers" may be biased. It is certainly unrepresentative. How does Mark Zuckerberg fit in to it?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

While the people who are currently on the list have Wikipedia articles and are therefore presumably notable, there is no source or indication why those people in particular were selected for the list, or whether they are more notable than other notable people who work with social media. I agree that the notability is very quesitonable indeed. For one thing, there are only five names in the list, three Americans and two British people, so it's obviously heavily slanted to the US and Britain. This being said, I do not know the field, at all, and won't try to fill the list with more names because I don't have any source indicating which names might be suitable. --bonadea contributions talk 21:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I have now removed the complete section. No information is better than biased information. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies/poor writing in the Mobile Social Media section[edit]

In addition to being poorly written, the third paragraph in the Mobile Social Media section is inaccurate. The following sentence is hyperbolic and lacks a reliable source (and is quite frankly untrue; mobile devices are increasingly an important aspect of internet usage but they haven't made other forms obsolete):

"With all the new devices that are arriving at our finger tips, gadgets such as tablets, iPods, phones, and many other new products, there is no use for sitting at home using one's PC; mobile social media has made other sources of internet browsing obsolete, and allows users to write, respond, and browse in real-time.

I am new to Wikipedia editing (I created an account because this article bugged me so much!) so I am not entirely sure what to do. I did a quick copy edit and added some "citation needed" and "clarification needed" tags but I think this section could use a complete re-write from someone with more expertise. Linds e m (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with errors in factual accuracy in the mobile section of social media. The fact that it lacks external references and lack of formal tone usage makes this section stand out as an opinion which calls into questions the objectivity of this section. ErickS-NJITWILL (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Social Media History _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Social Media history, in terms of same sex marriage, is an opinion. Opinions should be kept out of scholarly articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefilms (talkcontribs) 22:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Changes[edit]

The following proposed editions are for my college course Training Systems. My group consists of myself, Justin Galloway, and my partner, Jonathan Marshall. Please review.

What we want to do is combine the introduction section and the section following it entitled “Social Media Classifications”. The classifications section appears to have been a part of the introduction section at one time and flows well. We feel as though this will add to the clarity of the introduction section. We also propose adding a sentence describing how social media has joined the barbershop and backyard fence as places where information is traded and acted on.

We propose to add the following two sentences to the beginning of the Positive Effects section. a. Social media is becoming an essential aspect in communication and marketing within organizations. [3] b. Social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, can be used as successful marketing tools because of their mass appeal. [4]

Lastly we would like to remove one of the last sections of the article entitled “Loneliness”. We feel as though it does not require a section of the current article. It can be added to another section but we don’t feel that it adds enough value to the article to have its own section. JET theUFO (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Marsha49 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Jonathan Marshall

References

  1. ^ Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
  2. ^ Ahlqvist, T., Bäck, A., Halonen, M., & Heinonen, S. (2008). Social media roadmaps exploring the futures triggered by social media
  3. ^ 10 Things To Know About Preserving Social Media." Information Management Journal 45.5 (2011): 33-37. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Nov. 2012.
  4. ^ 10 Things To Know About Preserving Social Media." Information Management Journal 45.5 (2011): 33-37. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Nov. 2012.

Hi,

I agree with Justin and Jonathan about the need for changes to this site. Specifically, I think that we need to add how social media is becoming an essential aspect in communication and marketing for organizations. For example, Jet Blue and Sephora use twitter strategically to gain attention and serve their customers better.

Jenks27 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jenks27, I think it is important to talk about social media as an important tool for marketers and communications in general, but I would not cite specific brands or cases. Best, Zalunardo8 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right discussion to post this at, but i think this has to be said: The photo at the top of the article, showing various social medias, is very out of date. It's from 2008! Youtube, Hulu, Groupon, and others are not given enough prominence, and obscure websites are featured too often, seemingly to just fill up the diagram. Because of the abundant amounts of these irrelevant websites, all of the logos are difficult to see. Perhaps a higher resolution could be made? Not to mention that massive websites like Instagram and Vine are not even mentioned, because they did not exist at the time the diagram was made. (9/19/15) by SBB

@71.104.87.104: Very much agree that a higher resolution of that image would be very helpful...it's way too small! Please see the section #Higher resolution of the top image? further down. --Fixuture (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Reason for edits[edit]

Hi all, I edited a small portion that could have reference Media Activism in order for the article I am working on in my sandbox to not be an orphan--as this is discouraged by Wikipedia standards. Thanks! Jduden (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)jduden

Influence on Children[edit]

Hi all, I think this sentence should be deleted Social media may expose children to images of alcohol, tobacco, and sexual behaviors. Even though this might be true in some level, this applies to the internet in general rather than being an exclusive trait of social media platforms. The topic should be either further explored, or removed in my opinion. What do you think? Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

phishing link in the footer[edit]

The following link pops a phishing warning, so I suggest taking down the spam / phishing link in the footer of the social media article. It appears as *The Museum of Social Media* and links to h**p://w*w.wileyonlinelibrary.com/subject/code/000037/homepage/museum_of_social_media__home.ht** - Museum of scholarly articles on the rise and impact of social media (broke link for your safety) --Austenten (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I deleted the link, because the linked page seems to be gone anyway. Trivialist (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding infomation on Privacy and Employers[edit]

I am planning on editing the privacy section. I will add information on employers using social media as a basis for hiring and also for monitoring employees. I am just now getting started on this and will have more in a week or two.

Here is the link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clhenderson99/Sandbox/Social_Media_Privacy_and_Employers

Links[edit]

[1](Lihaas (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)).

I’m tired of seeing cartoons being circulated about old people. I have recently joined the ranks of old people and am astounded at their bravery. I feel I am brave. I can entertain and bowl while in excruciating pain knowing I will have pain all the time now. My friends are battling the knowledge that certain death is just around the corner and they never mention it.

They laugh with (not at) their friends. I hate to face what little life there is left without the benefit of a stiff drink or glass of wine (doc’s orders) And I hate the pills they prescribe which have the awful side effects. We are brave just to take them and suffer the consequences. Our minds do not have the vapidness of youth and we have so much wisdom which is completely and utterly ignored by young people in this country. We are the butt of jokes, which actually is better than being totally ignored by the sales clerk with the raised eyebrows and supercilious look. If I looked as I did 50 years ago, she would be fawning over me. I can makeor break her financially and just about every other way. I give her the practiced beatific smile and move on.

Yes, there are certain advantages to being older; being grumpy every now and again and getting away with it, living alone and doing your own thing is a big advantage But being brave is the great accomplishment of old age Brave in the face of impending death and in the face of demanding children who treat us like idiots with their presumption that we owe them our estates and complete obsequiousness

So, please don’t send me any more ghastly cartoons showing seniors in a ridiculous light. We are not incapable or silly. My memory is no worse than my 60 year old son‘s. I am brave. I am invincible-- until death do us part which we all hope to be gentle, but seldom is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.192.68 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  • This is a rant by an unsigned user some time ago, that has nothing at all to do with this article. Can it be deleted? Stringybark (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Stringybark request Morganglick (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Are moderated web forums and groups part of social media?[edit]

I don't see web forums and groups (e.g. Google Groups, Yahoo Groups, StackExchange groups, various 'boards', 'mailing lists', and the many thousands of independently-moderated registered-user discussion sites) mentioned anywhere in this article. Is that because they've been overlooked, are called something else, or are not part of what is thought of as social media? I don't know, I'm just here to find out. I need to know for something I'm writing up.

If you know they belong and you can provide a citation, then write them in. If they are not considered to be, or it is debatable if they are, part of social media, then an explicit sentence would be useful, along the lines of "Moderated discussion groups and forums are not considered to be [or, it is debatable if they are] part of social media for reason x and y [citation link]. Stringybark (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

#governmentshutdown[edit]

'On October 2, 2013, the most common hashtag throughout the country was “#governmentshutdown”' – Which country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekpie (talkcontribs) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Googled it... United States federal government shutdown of 2013. I've linked this in the article now. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Links[edit]

>> Azerbaijan accuses OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs of dependence on social networksLihaas (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

@Fayenatic london: I'd agree -- there should be other such incidents to balance it out (and maybe less emphasis on this one), and I wasn't sure if this were the right spot in the article or it needed (yet) another section. I think in general the article needs reorganization. Any suggestions? valereee (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee: Having helped you to retrieve this material,([2]) I thought I'd tag it but leave it to other editors to decide. – Fayenatic London 13:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That's fine! I'm planning to work on it -- would like to see it better organized, and one of the things I'd been thinking about for it since that missing person incident was that it was completely missing any mention of how social media has been widely reported as being used/useful in such situations. valereee (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Higher resolution of the top image?[edit]

The top image is truly helpful in bringing closer the varieties and diversity of social media but the resolution of the top image is way too small: one can barely discern the logos and some of the labels are unreadable.

(Also in section #Proposed Changes further up a user noted that many of those logos are outdated and that many significant social media sites are missing on it.)

So could you please upload a new version with a higher resolution?

User:Freshbeats is the original uploader (it seems he's also the creator of the image, Brian Solis).

His website has a newer image which has a resolution of 2880x1800.jpg: new image. Sadly there's no info on its copyright status on the website so it would be cool if someone could ask him about it (if freshbeats can't do that).

--Fixuture (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Internet and cats[edit]

Please swing by and help improve this new article! :D--Coin945 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia assignment: social media trustworthy[edit]

In my opinion, what works on this article is that it includes sources from many credential people. And it specifically explains the problem of trustworthy in social media. However, I think what does not work is it needs more solution on how can social media be trusted by people. Therefore, I suggest that to be able to trust the social media, there has to be added the quality of content and the responsiveness of the content creator. (reference from Emarketer, ‘What Makes Social Media Trustworthy?’) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.111.184 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Dopamine levels affected by social media[edit]

I just wanted to bring light to one reason why people seem to be addicted to social media.

One thing that has lead to Internet addiction is the instant gratification online interfaces can give. For example, a Tweet that is favorited or retweeted seems to validate what someone is going through, and it connects people. It is human nature to want to feel connected to one another and through internet interfaces, it has given us the opportunity to stay connected through a keyboard. The instant gratification is linked to dopamine loops in the brain. Dopamine contributes to several brain functions, such as thinking, moving, sleeping, mood, attention, motivation, seeking and reward. New research, is showing though that dopamine also causes a seeking behavior meaning that it causes people to want, desire, seek out, and search -- and that can be accomplished on the Internet. The article also shows that dopamine loops can be activated through unpredictability and social media is just that -- people never know when they are going to get a text, or have a tweet favorited, or have a picture liked. The unpredictability causes anticipation which just adds to the dopamine loop and keeps people checking social media, which keeps them online instead of talking to the people around them. [96]

[1]

Tinaalimaa (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

First use of term[edit]

It would be useful for the article to tell us when the term was first used, and who first coined it. 109.145.180.55 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the survey need to be updated more often. And it also lack of information about what are some of benefits of using social media. I would love to see more details on how survey in 2015 shows that the internet users who uses social networking site has increased. It only shows how many percentage went up. on the other hand, showing surveys was a really good idea to understand easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.206.151 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

History Section[edit]

Would be better if the history section wasn't a subsection and had more length and more description. Also, it would be nice to actually note how social media and technology improvements correlate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knhende2 (talkcontribs) 09:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It would indeed. In fact, ARPANET, which first came online in 1969, had by the late 1970s developed a rich cultural exchange of non-government/business ideas and communication, as clearly evidenced by ARPANET#Rules_and_etiquette's "A 1982 handbook on computing at MIT's AI Lab stated regarding network etiquette," and fully met the current definition of the term "social media" as given in the Wikipedia page/article. Social media -- computer-mediated technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, career interests and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks -- has a long and rich history dating back to the 1970s. Usenet, which arrived in 1979, was actually beat by a precursor of the eBBS known as Community Memory (1973), then by true electronic bulletin board systems, the first of which was the Computer Bulletin Board System in Chicago, which first came online on 16 February 1978. Before long, most major cities had more than one eBBS running on a TRS-80, Apple II, Atari, IBM PC, Commodore 64, Sinclair, and many others. The IBM PC takes us to 1981, with a host of both Mac and PCs being used throughout the 1980s. Multiple modems, followed by specialized telco hardware allowed multiple to many users online simultaneously. Compuserve and AOL were two of the largest eBBS companies, and were the first to migrate to the Internet in the 1990s. Message forums (a specific structure of social media) arose with the eBBS phenomenon throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. When the Internet arrived in the mid-1990s, message forums migrated online, primarily due to cheaper per-person access as well as the ability to handle far more people simultaneously than telco modem banks. Slate was one of the earliest and most successful online social media in the message forum format, followed by MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and others. Upon reviewing my comments, I see it forms the basis for a more complete History section. I will undertake this upgrade, soon.Clepsydrae (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Social Media as an Alternate Reality[edit]

Social Media is a way for people to interact with others, but it is also another reality that people tend to live and think is real. In our society today people tend to live through their social media and not through the life around them. We see so many people at dinner or walking in the street looking at their social media and seeing what other people are doing that are miles away from them, then focusing on the people that they are presently with.

This is a topic that i think is important because we use social media as an escape from what is in front of us, but it just makes us miss the life we have in front of us. Eevans11 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that talk pages aren't places for general discussion (WP:FORUM). Also social media keeps being part of this reality - it's just some peculiar aspect / part of it. As of right now what you're speaking about can be found in the section #Effects on interpersonal relationships of the article. If you have anything to add expand that section or create a new one. --Fixuture (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Concentration[edit]

Hi, the sentence under the subtitle Concentration needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.130.160 (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Does social media act as a distraction? This topic should have its own article. Kaitlin.hurley (talk) Kaitlin Hurley —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Updating definition[edit]

Greetings, I have made some revisions to the definition sections of the summary and the article. A number of edits in early September conflicted with the scholarly literature, and thus I worked to correct these inaccuracies. For instance: social media is not a post-2010 phenomenon and thus this shouldn't be suggested, also, real names and psuedonyms are not required for creating a social media profile, see YikYak for example. I have maintained the bullet/number list in the summary that was added; however, if folks would prefer the more traditional paragraph form in the summary I would be fine with this. --Jaobar (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Social Media Privacy[edit]

I noticed that on this page there is a lot of information to take in and a lot of it seems to be jumbled. I think we can take a lot of this information and condense it so that it's a little bit easier to understand. Danielleee g (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just split the preceding comment out of the section on "Updating definition" and re-titled it for clarity. I also agree with the commenter Danielleee g! ;-) yoyo (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. Thanks for re-titling the section, yoyo. @Danielleee g: The section headings for talk pages are automatically generated and bolded by their header level (the # of "=" signs on either side of the section title. If you add a talk page section without those headers, it won't show up in the table of contents and can make it confusing for editors trying to reply to specific sections. You can see a bit on how to do that in the training (links to the talk page section) and if you like you can see the edit where yoyo fixed the header here. I hope this helps. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Privacy rights advocates warn users on social media about the collection of their personal data. Some information is captured without the user's knowledge or consent through electronic tracking and third party applications. Data may also be collected for law enforcement and governmental purposes,[101] by social media intelligence using data mining techniques.[102] Data and information may also be collected for third party use. When information is shared on social media, that information is no longer private. There have been many cases in which young persons especially, share personal information, which can attract predators. It is very important to monitor what you share, and to be aware of who you could potentially be sharing that information with. Teens especially share significantly more information on the internet now than they have in the past. Teen are much more likely to share their personal information, such as email address, phone number, school names and more.[1] Studies suggest that teens are not aware of what they are posting and how much of that information can be accessed by third parties. Other privacy concerns with employers and social media are when employers use social media as a tool to screen a prospective employee. This issue raises many ethical questions that some consider an employer's right and others consider discrimination. Except in the states of California, Maryland, and Illinois, there are no laws that prohibit employers from using social media profiles as a basis of whether or not someone should be hired.[105] Title VII also prohibits discrimination during any aspect of employment including hiring or firing, recruitment, or testing.[106] Social media has been integrating into the workplace and this has led to conflicts within employees and employers.[107] Particularly, Facebook has been seen as a popular platform for employers to investigate in order to learn more about potential employees. This conflict first started in Maryland when an employer requested and received an employee's Facebook username and password. State lawmakers first introduced legislation in 2012 to prohibit employers from requesting passwords to personal social accounts in order to get a job or to keep a job. This led to Canada, Germany, the U.S. Congress and 11 U.S. states to pass or propose legislation that prevents employers' access to private social accounts of employees.[108] It is not only an issue in the workplace, but an issue in schools as well. There have been situations where students have been forced to give up their social media passwords to schools administrators. [2] There are inadequate laws to protect a student's social media privacy, and organizations such as the ACLU are pushing for more privacy protection, as it is an invasion. They urge students who are pressured to give up their account information to tell the administrators to contact a parent and/or lawyer before they take the matter any further. Although they are students, they still have the right to keep their password-protected information private[3]. Many Western European countries have already implemented laws that restrict the regulation of social media in the workplace. States including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin have passed legislation that protects potential employees and current employees from employers that demand them to give forth their username or password for a social media account.[109] Laws that forbid employers from disciplining an employee based on activity off the job on social media sites have also been put into act in states including California, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota, and New York. Several states have similar laws that protect students in colleges and universities from having to grant access to their social media accounts. Eight states have passed the law that prohibits post secondary institutions from demanding social media login information from any prospective or current students and privacy legislation has been introduced or is pending in at least 36 states as of July 2013.[110] As of May 2014, legislation has been introduced and is in the process of pending in at least 28 states and has been enacted in Maine and Wisconsin.[111] In addition, the National Labor Relations Board has been devoting a lot of their attention to attacking employer policies regarding social media that can discipline employees who seek to speak and post freely on social media sites. There are arguments that privacy is dead and that with social media growing more and more, social media users have become quite unconcerned with privacy. Others argue, however, that people are still very concerned about their privacy, but are being ignored by the companies running these social networks, who can sometimes make a profit off of sharing someone's personal information. There is also a disconnect between social media user's words and their actions. Studies suggest that surveys show that people want to keep their lives private, but their actions on social media suggest otherwise.[4] Danielleee g (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)danielleee_g

Addition to Negative Effects[edit]

Three researchers at Blanquerna University, Spain, examined how adolescents interact with social media and specifically {{Facebook}} template missing ID and not present in Wikidata.. They claimed that interactions on the website encourage representing oneself in the traditional gender constructs, which helps maintain gender stereotypes. The authors of the article noted that females generally show more emotion in their posts and more frequently change their profile pictures; which according to some psychologists can lead to self objectification.[2] While on the other hand, the researchers say that males like to portray themselves as strong, independent, and powerful. [3] Often, the researchers examines, these stereotypes have led to the limiting of one gender identity on social media because the traditional roles have generally been forced upon them in this setting. [4]Users of Facebook generally use their profile to reflect that they are a "normal" person. The authors explain that rise of social media has also made it more common for adolescents to compare themselves to their peers because on social media everyone portrays themselves in a positive light. This, they claim, makes it easy for others to compare their lives against this positive light and feel like their life is worse than the persons online.

Social Media PrivacyI have assigned myself the Social Media #Privacy wiki page. I noticed that the grammar isn't up to par and can be improved. There also seems to be too much information, and I feel that it can be condensed so that it's more manageable and readable. Danielleee g (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Danielleee_g I've found some good sources as well. [5] [6] [7]

References

  1. ^ Kent C. Berridge and Terry E. Robinson, What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience?: Brain Research Reviews, 28, 1998. 309–369.
  2. ^ Oberst, Ursala; Chamarro, Andres; Renau, Vanessa. "Gender Stereotypes 2.0: Self-Representations of Adolescents on Facebook". Media Education Research Journal. 24 (48): 81–89.
  3. ^ De Vies, D; Peter, J. "Women on Display: The Effect of Portraying the Self Online on Women's Self-objectification". Computers in Human Behavior. 29 (4): p1,483-1489.
  4. ^ "Facebook Involvement, Objectified Body Consciousness, Body Shame, and Sexual Assertiveness in College Women and Men". Sex Roles. 72.
  5. ^ http://www.lateledipenelope.it/public/52dff2e35b812.pdf
  6. ^ https://www.aclu.org/other/employers-schools-and-social-networking-privacy
  7. ^ Blurred Boundaries: Social Media Privacy and the Twenty-First-Century Employee; Patricia Sánchez Abril B.A., Duke University, 1996; J.D., Harvard Law School, 2000, Avner Levin, Alissa Del Riego J.D. Candidate, 2012 Harvard Law School; B.A., University of Miami, 2009
Added {reflist} to the above comment, so that references will appear here and not at the bottom of the page. --Hordaland (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Useful Sources[edit]

Here are some sources I found that could help when editing the article:

  • Tortajada; Araüna; Martínez. "Advertising Stereotypes and Gender Representation in Social Networking Sites". Grupo Comunicar. 21.
  • Meier, Evelyn; Gray, James. "Facebook Photo Activity Associated with Body Image Disturbance in Adolescent Girls". CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING. 17.
  • Oberst, Ursala; Chamarro, Andres; Renau, Vanessa. "Gender Stereotypes 2.0: Self-Representations of Adolescents on Facebook". Media Education Research Journal. 24 (48): 81–89.
  • De Vies, D; Peter, J. "Women on Display: The Effect of Portraying the Self Online on Women's Self-objectification". Computers in Human Behavior. 29 (4): p1,483-1489.
  • "Facebook Involvement, Objectified Body Consciousness, Body Shame, and Sexual Assertiveness in College Women and Men". Sex Roles. 72.
  • Holland; McKay; Moretti. "Self–other representations and relational and overt aggression in adolescent girls and boys". Behavioral Sciences and Law. 19. ISSN 0735-3936.
  • Tiggerman; Slater. "NetGirls: The Internet, Facebook, and body image concern in adolescent girls". Internet Journal of Eating Disorders. 46. doi:10.1002/eat.22141.
  • Barber; Blomfield Neira. "Social networking site use: Linked to adolescents' social self-concept, self-esteem, and depressed mood". Australian Journal of Psychology. 66. doi:10.1111/ajpy.12034.

Sdcox004 (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Hello Everyone, Attached below is the link to my overall review and minor suggestions I have for Danielle's draft for the privacy section of the Social Media article. Sincerely, Elizabeth Paredes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Danielleee_g/sandbox Eparedes97 (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In the article you should mention how social media can be used in the classroom also the effects it has on students both inside and outside of the classroom. Social media is becoming more prevalent in education for the use of communicating between students, and group projects/discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffma51 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment to Danielleee g[edit]

@ Danielleee g: Prof.bgreg here. Thanks for the work you’ve done on this article. Please see my feedback below for the paragraph you wrote on the tensions between the death and varying levels of concern for privacy.

There are arguments that privacy is dead and that with social media growing more and more, social media users have become quite unconcerned with privacy. Others argue, however, that people are still very concerned about their privacy, but are being ignored by the companies running these social networks, who can sometimes make a profit off of sharing someone's personal information.

• The above two sentences should be linked to sources so that they sound less like an opinion and more like a fact. For example, you might write “According to Author T, privacy may be dead. However, Author D has also argued that with the growth of social media, there has been a growth in people who may be unconcerned with privacy at all.” For each sentence, you should draw from a source that has made these arguments and quote the author(s) in order to give them more factual strength. The same goes for the next sentence where you delve into the people who are still concerned with privacy, which begins “Others argue…” Refer to the author(s) who have made these claims and remember to correctly cite your sources using the citation tool in Wikipedia in both sentences.

There is also a disconnect between social media user's words and their actions. Studies suggest that surveys show that people want to keep their lives private, but their actions on social media suggest otherwise.

• For the above sentence, you’ll also want to reference the source(s) / author(s) where you found this information, so you might write “There is also a disconnect between social media user's words and their actions, according to Author F. Study X suggests that surveys show…”.

After you make these changes, the paragraph will read better and will be more in line with the Wikipedia principle for writing in a neutral point of view (NPOV). Looking forward to seeing your edits.

Best, Prof.bgreg (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of article published by David Publishing[edit]

One or more unregistered editors are insisting that this article is a reliable source for the fairly mundane claim that "text was indicated as the most important reason among Internet users." I challenge the reliability of this source and any other source published by David Publishing. I'm laid out my arguments at WP:RSN and I encourage interested editors to participate in the discussion there. ElKevbo (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Why this wikipedia is work for my Argument Essay?[edit]

My Argument Essay is talk about Social media should be promoted. Because in this article the writer write about Negative effects that is what I need in my essay. Same with the author I wrote regarding privacy issues, internet fraud, and it also can lead to depression or other self-esteem issues. It also give a lot of datum can be used for reference. And from the references I can find more information for my essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.165 (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

User Talk: kander9[edit]

Social media involves user-generated content. Users are allowed to share and create content on the site. Popular social media sites include Facebook and Twitter. Businesses can use social media to accomplish goals and promote their organization. SoMo is defined as social media apps on mobile devices, such as phones. SoMo creates more opportunities for businesses. Location-based marketing is one opportunity businesses could use. Depending on the user's location they get notified about deals for businesses in the area. Privacy is an area of concern for social media. Social media will continue to develop and advance. Kander9 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Social media. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 21:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

History of social media?[edit]

There's nothing here on the history of social media? How did it evolve? What were the first 'social' sites, and what made them so? Where does the term come from? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.136.167 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Social media. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 14:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Article Updates[edit]

I'm planning on starting work to clean up this article, especially when it comes to restoring a neutral POV to the text. I've noticed that several subsections have been flagged because of it, and it seems that, for the most part, it hasn't been worked on in some time. Wrixan (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This article did a very good job of remaining neutral although there were some areas that could have expanded on different types of social media. However, very well cited and consistently neutral. Taylor.claytonn (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Responding to "does not cite any sources" tag[edit]

I'm responding to the errant and wanton use of the following tag in the new History section: "This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." To whomever placed this tag, I invite you to carefully review the content of this section. It references no less than 17 other Wikipedia articles, all of which are heavily cited. This section was never meant to duplicate those sections, either their content or their own cites. Rather, this section is a quick summary of key points in support of this article i.e. social media, from those articles, and linking to those articles, and their cites, is more than sufficient for the purpose of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, one of which involved avoiding duplication! Ergo, no cites here in this summary. The cites are readily available at the multiple linked Wikipedia articles. In the future, I respectfully request whoever's dropping these tags first review the nature of the content. In History sections, a quick summary is more than sufficient, without rehashing detailed content -- or its citations -- from the linked articles.Clepsydrae (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Upon further review, I find that Wikipedia doesn't accept its own linked articles as citations or references, regardless of how many acceptable citations those articles might have themselves. Thus, I will review the cites in the linked articles. If they pass academic standards, I will include enough to lend the appropriate level of credibility to this section. If not, I will find some new citations which should more than suffice.Clepsydrae (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I added four citations to reliable sources (CBS News, The Daily Dot, The Atlantic, and University of Southern California) for the History section. As per the instructions at Help:Maintenance template removal, I am "being bold" and removing the tag.Clepsydrae (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Evaluation of the article[edit]

In my opinion, I feel as though this article is compacted with a lot of information which made it a little overwhelming to read. Although there was a variety of information, all of it related to the topic itself. I did appreciate the amount of sources used and that the links worked when I checked them. As a whole, I think this is a well structured article that includes many reliable sources.Ivydellis (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I also noticed with the information, that is starting to become out of date. There's one statistic from 2015, but other than that it's mainly 2013 and later. A lot can change in 5 years, and I think the statistics could use an update.Kayleyrushin (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone of the section on interpersonal effects of social media[edit]

I vetted the sources being cited in the subject section (Social media#Effects on interpersonal relationships). When comparing the content to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I found one or more issues with nearly every sentence written (see my talk page for a line-by-line record of what I investigated). These were the problems I found:

  • Gross misrepresentation
    • Extrapolating, without evidence, observations of a narrow demographic (e.g. undergraduate college students in the US) to social media users in general
    • Presenting findings about Internet and email usage as findings about social media
    • Presenting evidence of correlation between two things as cause-and-effect
    • Summarizing the source's findings inaccurately
  • Improper citation
    • Mentioning a particular study but citing a news article that cites the study, not the study itself
    • Putting inappropriate, judgment-based words in the author's mouth (author wrote "more honest communication" and the Wikipedia editor wrote it as the "best" way to communicate)
  • Improper sources
    • Original research (i.e. primary sources)
    • Magazines
    • Opinion articles on news websites
    • Articles based on anecdotal evidence and not scientific study
    • Articles with a very narrow focus (when certainly there are more general studies out there that would prove the point)
  • Misplaced text
    • Considering whether social media addiction exists (not necessarily interpersonal in nature)

The extent of these issues is so deep that there is a not a quick fix to this. I am happy to work on this long term, but in the meantime it is better to have no information than bad. I propose to delete the second and third paragraphs of the section, as they had the more egregious violations of Wikipedia's policies. For the first paragraph, I think if I rewrite some sentences and delete one or two sentences that are clear violators of policy, then it should really clean up the un-encyclopedic tag. Romhilde (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Major reorganization[edit]

With many major contributions over time, the article has become overwhelmingly long, and its structure is more like patchwork than something deliberately planned. When links to other relevant Wikipedia articles are missing as well, we run into issues like partial overlap, redundancy, and direct contradictions (contradictions being especially damaging to credibility).

I am hopeful that reorganizing the article and inserting the appropriate links to other Wikipedia articles will make it easier to spot and correct the issues I mentioned, so here is my proposed reorganization (thoughts and feedback are most welcome):

  1. History
  2. Definition and classification
  3. How social media works
    1. Viral content
    2. Automation
    3. Social authority
    4. Patents of social media technology
  4. Statistics on usage and membership
    1. Most popular social networks
    2. Social media usage
  5. Use of social media by organizations
    1. Use of social media by businesses
    2. Social media mining
    3. Social media in politics
    4. Use of social media during recruitment and hiring
    5. Commercialization
    6. Social media marketing
  6. Use of social media by individuals
    1. Use of social media as a news source
    2. Forming and maintaining interpersonal relationships
    3. Self-presentation
    4. Use of social media to improve health
    5. Content creation
    6. Use of social media in career preparation
  7. Effects of social media
    1. Disparity
    2. Ideological polarization
    3. Stereotyping
    4. Cognition and memory
    5. Physical and mental health
    6. Effects on youth communication
  8. Criticism, debate and controversy
    1. Trustworthiness and reliability
    2. Critique of social media activism
    3. Ownership of social media content
    4. Privacy
    5. Criticism of commercialization on social media
    6. Debate over addiction to social media
    7. Debate over using social media in academic settings
    8. Censorship

In more detail, the change would look like this:

Current Section Number & Name Proposed Section Number & Name
1 History 1 History
2 Definition and classification 2 Definition and classification
- 3 How social media works
2.1 Viral content 3.1 Viral content
2.2 Mobile users 2.1 Mobile social media
- 5 Use of social media by organizations
2.3 Business potential 5.1 Use of social media by businesses
2.3.1 Business performance 5.1.1 Performance benefits
3 Monitoring, tracking and analysis 5.1.2 Monitoring, tracking and analysis of consumers
4 Social media automation 3.2 Automation
4.1 Bots and social media marketing 3.2.1 Bots and their effect on analytics
4.2 Cyborgs 3.2.2 Human-assisted bots
5 Building "social authority" 3.3 Social authority (A portion should be merged with section on trustworthiness)
6 Data mining 5.2 Social media mining
6.1 Techniques Move to the separate social media mining Wikipedia article
7 Global usage 4 Statistics on usage and membership
7.1 Most popular services 4.1 Most popular social networks
- 6 Use of social media by individuals
7.2 Effects of usage for news purposes 6.1 Use of social media as a news source
7.3 Effects on individual and collective memory Split into 6.1.1 Effects on individual and collective memory and 5.3 Social media in politics
8 Criticisms 8 Criticism, Debate and Controversy
- 7 Effects of social media
8.1 Disparity 7.1 Disparity
8.2 Trustworthiness Split into 6.1 Use of social media as a news source and 8.1 Trustworthiness and reliability
8.3 Passive participation Split into 8.2 Critique of social media activism and 5.3 Social media in politics
8.4 Reliability Merge into 8.1 Trustworthiness and reliability
8.5 Ownership of social media content 8.3 Ownership of social media content
8.6 Privacy Split into 5.4 Use of social media during recruitment and hiring and 8.4 Privacy
8.7 Effects on interpersonal relationships 6.2 Forming and maintaining interpersonal relationships
8.8 Commercialization Split into 5.5 Commercialization and 8.5 Criticism of commercialization on social media
8.8.1 Launching new campaign through social media Delete - Magnum's social media campaign is receiving undue weight and attention
8.9 Selective exposure 7.2 Ideological polarization
9 Harmful effects Split into 7.3 Stereotyping, 6.3 Self-presentation, 6.2.1 Relationships with strangers, 7.4 Cognition and Memory, and 7.5 Physical and mental health
10 Impact on physical and mental health Merge into 7.5 Physical and mental health
10.1 Mood disturbances 7.5.1 Changes in mood
10.2 Facebook addiction disorder 8.6 Debate over addiction to social media
10.3 Weight-related issues 6.4 Use of social media to improve health
11 Beneficial effects Split into 6.5 Content creation and 4.2 Social media usage
12 Impact on job seeking Merge into 5.4 Use of social media during recruitment and hiring
13 College admission Merge into 5.4 Use of social media during recruitment and hiring
14 Political effects Merge into 5.3 Social media in politics
14.1 Beneficial versus harmful effects of Twitter 5.3.1 Role in social conflict
14.2 Use by militant groups 5.3.2 Use by militant groups
15 Patents 3.4 Patents of social media technology
16 In the classroom 8.7 Debate over using social media in academic settings
16.1 Wikipedia Delete - describes only 1 incident, and therefore has undue weight
16.2 Facebook and the classroom 8.7.1 Using Facebook in academic settings
16.3 Twitter 8.7.2 Using Twitter in academic settings
16.4 Impact of retweeting on Twitter Merge with 3.1 Viral content
16.5 YouTube 8.7.3 Using YouTube in academic settings
16.6 LinkedIn Delete the paragraph about what LinkedIn is and merge the rest into 6.6 Use of social media in career preparation
17 Social media marketing Summarize as 5.6 Social media marketing and link to the separate Wikipedia article
17.1 Use of social media personalities in advertising Merge into 5.6 Social media marketing
17.2 Tweets containing advertising Merge into 5.6 Social media marketing
18 Censorship incidents 8.8 Censorship
19 Effects on youth communication 7.6 Effects on youth communication

Romhilde (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Merging 'social networking service' and 'social media'[edit]

Looking into the articles social media and social networking service, they seem to a large extent to cover the same subject. (Look at their tables of contents: there really is quite much and essential overlap.) The phenomenon simply seems to have begotten two names: 'social networking service' seems a more neutral, scientific/technical name, 'social media' seems more of a 'plugging', promoting name, presumably pushed by the companies (Facebook etc.) themselves (with implicit suggestion: we are 'social', the old media (TV, newspapers etc) are not—do we, Wikipedia, need to further support that strong token 'social media' that the companies have invented for selfpromotion?)
Most importantly: if the two articles basically treat the same subject (from slightly different, but complementing(!) angles, now and then) they SHOULD be merged.
After that primal decision is taken, we can 'quarrel' further about the definitive title of the merged page (with ofcourse all alternative titles becoming a REDIRECT). --Corriebertus (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to merge the two articles. I have also noticed that many scientific journals use the name social networking site or SNS, seemingly in place of the phrase social media. I agree that social networking site seems to be the preferred technical, neutral term for describing sites like Facebook and LinkedIn. One exception is Twitter: from what I have read, the preferred technical, neutral term for Twitter is microblogging platform or microblogging site (examples are here and here). And, at least this guy believes that Twitter specifically is not a social networking site. Similar things can be said about YouTube, Tumblr, Wikipedia, Snapchat, etc. So, if Facebook is a social networking site, Twitter and Tumblr are microblogging platforms, YouTube is an online video platform, Snapchat is a messaging app, and so on, it would seem that every social media platform already has a technical, neutral term to describe it. If this is the case, shouldn't we turn this article into a disambiguation page? Romhilde (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm perhaps not that versed in all the technicalities you bring to the fore, here. Currently, Wikipedia calls Twitter a 'social networking service'; nevertheless, our Wikipedia article 'social media' already states in the lead section that Twitter is one "of the most popular social media websites" So, Twitter seems to be considered both: 'social media/medium' and 'social networking service'. Thus, this (important) example perhaps perfectly illustrates how interchangeable the two labels in many or most(!) cases seem to be.
And ofcourse, if some specialists want to call Twitter also a microblogging site (etc.), there's no impediment to write that in our Twitter lead section, too. The issue here is not, whether Twitter is this or that, or whether 'Snapchat is rather a messaging app than a social medium' (etc., etc.—which can be solved in those articles themselves).
My point and issue here is, that for 90% the two now existing Wikipedia articles (mentioned in heading of this section) seem clearly to bear on the same group of websites, and in that case simply OUGHT to be merged. Romhilde, you seem to contradict yourself—do you support the merging I propose, or do you prefer to make 'social media' a disambiguation page? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out and asking for clarification. The two Wikipedia articles significantly overlap, and for that reason alone a merger should be seriously considered. I think where I hesitate is not knowing at what step in a potential merge process we would address Wikipedia's own inconsistencies, and its inconsistencies with the sourced material. If the sources we are citing treat social media platforms and social networking sites as two separate topics, then we will benefit from presenting them as two topics as well. But, as it is now, Wikipedia is ambiguous about how social media and SNSs are different. I don't know the answers myself, but I am willing to dig into the sources to find out. Some parts of the social media article come from statements made specifically about social networking sites. It makes sense to merge that information into the SNS article. Since the SNS article is rated as a higher quality than the social media article, I think the SNS article should remain largely intact, with the best of the social media article inserted into it. So, I would support merging social media into SNS, while maintaining the quality of the article, and having social media redirect temporarily to social networking service. I say temporarily, because as we dig into the sources I think we will find it is justifiable to have two articles. But as you have pointed out, Wikipedia currently presents the two topics as nearly identical. Romhilde (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
In general, I agree to your ideas and reasoning as given here. I think we agree that merging the two articles is highly recommendable and logical (and I'm sorry but I personally won't have time in the near future to do it. Are there any volunteers?). If the SNS article is already rated higher (thus 'better'), the logical thing is to merge 'Social media' into 'Social networking service', as you say.
I think we need not worry about potential sources treating S.m. and SNS as two different things/topics. It is not likely that many sources will do so; and if a few sources do, they will probably not contradict our observation that at least 90% of all (so-called) S.m.'s are also called SNS and 90% of all (so-called) SNS are also called S.m.. Probably, the new merged article will contain a section explaining that a few sources prefer to distinguish between 'social media' and 'social networking service', etc..
If we come across inconsistencies of Wikipedia herself, the way to handle them is: first check if one of the presentations is clearly false; if none is clearly false, just say in the merged article that there are two contrasting views on this or that topic. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Addition[edit]


  • Some proposed changes

Hi all, I recently wrote section 5.3.3. "Weaponization by state-sponsored groups". I added a citation to a scientific paper I had written, but as new editor had failed to disclose a conflict of interest.

Information to be added or removed: A citation for the sentence: "Social media platforms have been weaponized by state-sponsored cyber groups to attack governments in the United States, European Union, and Middle East."

Explanation of issue: The entire section comes from research, so I wish to add a reference to the top line. The research has been peer reviewed in the Journal of International Affairs.

References supporting change:

https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/weaponization-social-media-spear-phishing-and-cyberattacks-democracy

https://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=0022197X&AN=132491875&h=IzA4cJwXZqvcNz7mYt5SMET9AoZJrmhT3lXwm3XTPNe1%2frIHAwRTffgrN2H1F0jqf39j42hIzeMe5CFKXr4XWQ%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d0022197X%26AN%3d132491875 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoMeGuRu (talkcontribs) 00:47, 01 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply 31-OCT-2018[edit]

Breezeicons-emblems-8-emblem-error.svg  Edit request declined  

  1. It is unclear from your request where the references are to be placed. References are typically placed precisely where text appears which is referenced by the source, per WP:INTEGRITY. You have indicated that you wish one sentence to contain the reference, but you've also stated that "the entire section comes from research". Stated in this manner, it is unclear where the reference is to be placed.
  2. Edit requests should state verbatim how the text is to be shown in the affected section. This verbatim text should show your properly formatted reference placed at the desired locations.
  3. The citation you have provided is not formatted correctly. The citation style used by the Social media article is Citation Style 1. The reference you have provided is a URL link. Any reference added to the article needs to be placed in the citation style already used by the article, per WP:CITEVAR.
  4. It is unclear whether the community will accept the added text in this section, as it originated from your original research, which is generally not accepted in Wikipedia, per WP:NOR. If you were to provide research done by others covering this topic, it would strengthen your case for inclusion.
  5. All posts left on the talk page require you to add your signature. You may do so by placing 4 tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post.

Please open a new {{request edit}} template at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the requested information and corrections. Regards,  Spintendo  06:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes[edit]


Thank you for the reply @Spintendo, and again, apologies as I'm new to editing.

Information to be added or removed: I am advocating to include a scientific reference to section 6.3.3, as outlined below.

Social media platforms have been weaponized by state-sponsored cyber groups to attack governments in the United States, European Union, and Middle East.Bossetta, Michael. "The Weaponization of Social Media: Spear Phishing and Cyber Attacks on Democracy". Journal of International Affairs. 71 (1.5): 97–106. Retrieved 2018-09-03.

Explanation of issue: This is not an original research citation, but a scientific research citation, which has undergone peer-review for Columbia University's Journal of International Affairs. I am the author of the article, and wrote the section 6.3.3 that included 7 other scientific references supporting the introductory sentence that I apply to add a reference to.

References supporting change: The below URL is a reference to the print version of the article, although I have added the web version above as it is easier to access publicly.

https://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=0022197X&AN=132491875&h=IzA4cJwXZqvcNz7mYt5SMET9AoZJrmhT3lXwm3XTPNe1%2frIHAwRTffgrN2H1F0jqf39j42hIzeMe5CFKXr4XWQ%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d0022197X%26AN%3d132491875

SoMeGuRu (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)SoMeGuru

"This is not an original research citation, but a scientific research citation, which has undergone peer-review for Columbia University's Journal of International Affairs." I appreciate your explanation, but I already know what a journal article is. My question asks this: Are you the only researcher who has covered the 'social media as viewed through the lenses of weaponry' type-angle for this topic? Specifically, are you the only researcher who has applied the term 'weaponry' to social media when comparing it to other classical tools of weaponry (i.e., guns, explosives, transportation, etc) or have other researchers also made this link? If you can point to other researchers who have made this link then please do so (because it validates your point and makes it easier to add the information to the article in question.) Those are the types of explanations you should bring to the table here, rather than "this is an article which is published in journals" because most of us are already past that simple identification part. Please advise, and thank you for your help.  Spintendo  00:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The claim of weaponization as a separate purpose is one side of the coin, with the other side seeing it as part and parcel of all internet freedoms which may also be viewed as "a long game, to be conceived of and supported not as a separate agenda but merely as an important input to the more fundamental political freedoms."[1] For the purposes of this paragraph in the Social media Wikipedia article, is it fair to mention one side and not the other? Or is there a way we could mention both aspects which might offer a better viewpoint for this paragraph? Please advise your thoughts on this. Thank you!  Spintendo  00:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Shirky, Clay (2011). "The Political Power of Social Media". Foreign Affairs. 90 (1): 19. ISSN 2327-7793.
Hi again, @Spintendo. Let me first say that I'm impressed by the community's awareness here, and again, let me re-emphasize my apologies if my formatting is not correct. It's quite difficult to follow and translate the code into practice when starting out.
To address your first point, and to paraphrase: "Am I the only researcher who has addressed social media from a weaponry perspective?" The short answer is no, and it's an interesting point. The "weaponization of social media" is currently a trending topic in academia that is currently widely interpretable, and many scholars are trying to claim a stake in defining it. See, for example, the recently published book "Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media."[1] The book largely defines weaponization as information warfare (i.e. propaganda), whereas other recent reports of weaponization on social media have focused similarly on propaganda via targeted advertising.[2]
Both works do not consider social media as mechanical weaponry; rather, they refer to social media's information carrying potential as the primary interpretation of weaponization. Yet, the potential for social media, especially Twitter, to be used as a weapon has been clearly demonstrated by the Russians.[3] I detail several other such 'weaponry' examples (backed by media references) from China and Iran in my article, which is why I decided to include it.
Interestingly, the Shirky article you cite claims that social media is "difficult to weaponize for country-specific policy goals."[4] This was conventional wisdom when Shirky wrote the article, but recent cyberattacks by state-sponsored attacks via social media have proven otherwise (again, outlined in my article).
The reason I wrote this section (6.3.3), was to emphasize that social media has been and is being weaponized - not just by information, but also as a concrete weapon via cyberattacks - to enact country-specific policy goals. I included in section 6.3.3 several references that substantiate this claim; that social media is weaponized not just as information in line with propaganda and the manipulation of public opinion, but for the pinpointed aim of breaching networks and to impact critical infrastructure. Perhaps it wasn't clear, and I'd appreciate advice on how to proceed for improvement.
Best,
SoMeGuRu (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)SoMeGuRu

removal of tags[edit]

With regard to this , this and this edit - can you expalin here on the talk page what your intent is? Your edit summaries say "Added info to last two paragraphs of "effects on youth communication" and rearranged some paragraphs from this same section (from my sandbox User: Psaltele/sandbox" - but all you seem to have done is remove the various {{cn}} {{vague}} and {{who}} tags?

The only positive result was the removal of a <nowiki> tag that caused two words to flow into each other. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Political Polarization[edit]

Just wanted to write in the changes I made to the header "Ideological Polarization." Because the information which was already under “Ideological Polarization” referred more specifically to “Political Polarization,” and because my research was also related more specifically to political polarization, I changed the heading from “Ideological Polarization” to “Political Polarization.” I edited the information which was previously under the header to exclude information which was not related specifically to social media or political polarization, and to exclude “factual” statements which were not backed up by sources. I edited the information related to “selective exposure” and the Hayat and Samuel-Azran study to make it more succinct and relevant to the topic of political polarization. From there I added my own research which had not been referenced in the Wiki page, including the final four paragraphs and all references aside for the Hayat and Samuel Azran study.

References added include

Matsa, K. E., & Shearer, E. (2018). News Use Across Social Media Platforms. Retrieved November 25, 2018, from http://www.journalism.org/2018/09/10/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2018/

Bail, C., Argyle, L., Brown, T., Bumpus, J., Chen, H., Fallin Hunzaker, M.B., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (37) 9216-9221. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1804840115

Diehl, T., Weeks, B. E., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2016). Political persuasion on social media: Tracing direct and indirect effects of news use and social interaction. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1875–1895. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815616224

Hardy, Molly & E Sorenson, Mary & Warner, Benjamin. (2016). Ferguson on Facebook: Political persuasion in a new era of media effects. Computers in Human Behavior. 57. 1-10. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.003.

Lee, J.K., Choi, J., Kim, C., Kim, Y. (2014). Social Media, Network Heterogeneity, and Opinion Polarization. Journal of Communication. Volume 64, Issue 4, Pages 702–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077

Mihailidis, P., Viotty, S., & Payne, J. (2017). Spreadable Spectacle in Digital Culture: Civic Expression, Fake News, and the Role of Media Literacies in “Post-Fact” Society. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(4), 441-454.


Masonbeck17 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Masonbeck17

Suggestion for new page: Social Media Addiction[edit]

My name is Dr Peter James Chisholm. I am a medical doctor in Melbourne Australia. I have attended the Canadian ADHD Resource Alliance congress in Canada this year, and from this and my lived experience of social media addiction, I have a lot to contribute to this page.

I suggest 1. That we make a new page Social Media Addiction 2. That we aim for featured article status 3. That it is rapidly edited and protected 4. That it start with what I placed on my talk page or similar. I am working on getting many references now. 5. That we be as neutral as possible, as we are always, taking all points of view, but not neutrality for neutrality's sake - we don't need the opposing view if it has been throughly debunked. I do not want to enter into edit war with anyone.

Please note I started my concept What5words - which is a tactical business structure in Australia, New Zealand and Bulgaria in an attempt to address this crisis and protect myself from the large internet corporations. It appears I have done this with some success. I don't intend to make lots of money, just reinvest into this crisis as it worsens, and you can see this via my other writings on the internet.

Please let me know what you think. E.3 (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Singer, P.W.; Brooking, Emerson (2018). LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-1-328-69574-1.
  2. ^ Nadler, Anthony; Crain, Matthew; Donovan, Joan (October 2018). Weaponizing the Digital Influence Machine: The Political Perils of Online Ad Tech (Report). Data&Society.
  3. ^ Frenkel, Sheera (2017-05-28). "Hackers Hide Cyberattacks in Social Media Posts". New York Times. Retrieved 2018-11-05.
  4. ^ Shirky, Clay (2011). "The Political Power of Social Media". Foreign Affairs. 90 (1): 31. ISSN 2327-7793.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media
en.wikipedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-51
258308
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:7OFNMI7LFNEUEPW4D2Y4X3IFL6V7EXYJ
<urn:uuid:fffec76d-fae6-4a53-86a5-5a7c2e91bc62>
2018-12-16T17:16:06Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:WPOL2JGNFHEZFHQXHXAN4K53D2I6Y2PW
<urn:uuid:0614f166-7115-46f0-8c2e-f14605df8d19>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media
response
<urn:uuid:51e104fa-7a49-423e-8fe5-6806c1779956>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-51
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for December 2018
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-65-213-53.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/