Talk:Small world phenomenon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Six Degrees of Seperation Merge

Wow, that was fast. Nice work, 193.203.83.22 --Ed Poor 20 Aug 2002

[edit] John Guare Play

Let's also pay homage to the the John Guare play and movie adaptation Six Degrees of Separation. The play posits that we are all connected by six or fewer stages of circumstance or acquaintance. --Ed Poor 20 Aug 2002

[edit] The Tipping Point

The Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell, based on articles in the New Yorker argues that the six-degrees phenomenon is dependent on a few extraordinary people who know lots of people, thereby creating many links between us ordinary folk who know only a few people. Ortolan88 20 Aug 2002

May be we should link to the relevant article, Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg 196.12.43.2 28 Dec 2004

Thanks for the link. It's been in the article for quite a while. [1] (I just dated the older comments, which were made in August 2002 :-) chocolateboy 08:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Hi, UtherSRG.

re:

  1. C. Elegans and neurons
  2. C. Elegans' neurons

correct:

nematode worm neurons
cat neurons
grass stalks

incorrect:

nematode worm and neurons
cat' neurons
grass' stalks

correct: C. Elegans neurons

regards, chocolateboy 22:32, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Difficulty of Testing

A problem with testing the small world phenomenon is that study of it assumes people are competent at discovering the chain of connection. Most small world discoveries I've found are the result of chance meetings or remarks.

I'm 2 degrees of separation from rock star Carlos Santana [me to him through 2 intermediaries]. I'm also 2 or 3 degrees of separation from late Hong Kong actor-singer Leslie Cheung Kwok-Wing. Anyone's attempt to connect Mr. Santana and Mr. Cheung would almost certainly not be routed through me, an ordinary person. Yet I do form a link in one of possibly many chains of 6 intermediaries or less between the two of them. 209.148.113.226 26 Oct 2004

[edit] Small-world phenomenon

Not small world phenomenon (which is parsed as (small) (world phenomenon)). I am intending to move and place a redirect at small world phenonmenon. --stochata 02:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There exist two canonical titles to consider. The Milgram's "The small world problem", Psychology Today 1, 61 (1967), (notice the absense of the dash) vs. the Kleinberg's "The Small-World Phenomenon: An Algorithmic Perspective", Cornell Computer Science Technical Report 99-1776 (1999). See further the Reference section in the article page for the variation.
While I personally favour the dashed version, I think that Milgram's version, by right, is the one to stick with, as he was the first to name it. BACbKA 07:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for putting this up for discussion before actually moving it, since, as you can see, the issue is not very straightforward. BACbKA 07:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No problem with putting it up -- wading in and moving a whole topic can be upsetting! However, I do think that this is a point of grammar, rather than a point of content debate. Milgram's grammar is incorrect (for whatever reason). I am happy to redirect from "small world problem" to here, even mention that it is unhyphenated by Milgram, but I really feel the grammar should be "correct" within Wikipedia. The "correct" grammar is to assume precedence from the right-hand side unless a hyphen is used -- hyphenation anyone? --stochata 14:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Given the lack of votes and that you are against, I will set up a redirect from small-world phenomenon instead. --stochata 20:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks... BACbKA 08:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I strongly favour the hyphenated version, as it is the only one that complies with common spelling rules - see hyphenation. I don't think that it matters much what Milgram said - after all, it's not a proper noun. I propose moving the article. Anyone who does not agree? -- H005 22:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently no one does - so I'll do as proposed within the next days unless someone opposes. -- H005 23:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scientific/ mathematical basis

The phrase "remarkably little research.." can't be true. And it gives the false impression that the phenomenon has little or no scientific or mathematical basis. A google search ("six degrees" "social network" references) yields almost 6000 results. What quantity is remarkably little, more or less than this? Also, I seem to recall reading somewhere awhile back about Monte Carlo methods having been used to confirm it pretty convincingly on simulated networks; and Scientific American seems to have some recent stuff.

Watts, D.J. and Strogatz, S.H., "Collective Dynamics of 'Small-World'
Networks", Nature, vol. 393, 4 June 1998, pp. 440-442.

Herzel, H., "How to Quantify 'Small-World' Networks?", Fractals,
vol. 6, no. 4, 1998, pp. 301-303.

-- 70.29.131.204 13:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article and 6 degrees of seperation both claim they came first.

In 6 degrees of Seperation It claims that the concept and term was thought up by Frigyes Karinthy in 1929, and it led to the experiment happening.

In this article it claims that the experiment here led to the Idea and term. This should probably be sorted out.-72.230.6.138 13:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


This issue is addressed in the book "Linked", by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi. He writes: "Incidentally, Milgram is a child of a Hungarian father and Romanian mother who immigrated to the United States and settled in the Bronx. Could his father or uncles, who often visited, have been aware even anecdotally of Karinthy's five degrees? Could his real interest in the problem have been rooted in stories overheard as a child? This again is something we will never know, but it certainly suggests some interesting paths in the evolution of the idea of six degrees." (from Barabasi, "Linked", Ch. "The Third Link - Six Degrees of Separation, section 4.)

[edit] LinkedIn

Shouldn't we have a link to LinkedIn? It can be viewed as a practical application of the phenomenon.

Linked in is only one of hundreds of social networks (many of which are bigger and better known) that show the phenomenon. I don't see why LinkedIn deserves special recognition. Golbeck 07:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links at the bottom

Many of them are dead140.247.87.226 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

The two artices overlap heavily. Two possible options: either to merge them or make a very sharp separation of the topics. `'mikka 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)