Talk:Social network service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social network service article.
Article policies

This category is more specific than social software. But these things don't only do "social networking" (what networking isn't "social" anyway? that is a bad thing to link to), they do email and chat and blogs also. There's over 300 of them now, so it's time to have one article about their common features and problems.

Including the fact that few will survive their coming shakeout.

Computer networking is not social when machines share information with other machines in an automated way.Mamawrites 10:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking about either expanding this article with the social networking services that IBM and Micrcosoft are planning to sell to enterprise customers as well as adding some of the smaller niche software vendors; or, I would create an entirely new article. Being that these types are services are only a few months old, the issues I would of course have is that not much information is availabe besides corporate press releases. Any idea of what to reference besides bloggers of dubious credibility?

Contents

[edit] list of social neworks

can we have a list of social networks? possibled along with their size? Xah Lee 09:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I added a link to a list developing at YASNS. Mamawrites 10:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it is best to have it as a category, so that it would automatically updated as new pages about sites are added. Alex Kosorukoff 20:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a list would be a good resource for people. Maybe along with their size you could put their genre, because some are unique. Klostermankl (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A history section would be nice.

--Apoc2400 12:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Especially one mentioning Friendster. Wasn't it the first modern social networking site? --CKL —Preceding comment was added at 23:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source edit warnings

Hi. As is permissible with spam-vulnerable articles and lists in Wikipedia, I have inserted source edit warnings regarding external linking to the article main body and the "See also" section. If you believe this to be incorrect, please revert and drop me a line. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This does not include the recently added "References" section - as long as links are relevant to the information added in the body of the article of course. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pee, oh, vee!

This is a massively opinionated turd. 66.51.146.139 19:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This article is no worse in that respect than many others contained within Wikipedia, in fact it is more substantial than most in content alone. I would suggest that it is in fact your POV which makes you decide to tag for neutrality without giving us specific examples of what you find as opinion. Your final descriptive noun summing up the article makes me think yours was a frivolous edit, and I am therefore removing the tag. If you would like to re-add the tag at a later date, please do so in tandem with a more fulfilling reason, and quote your objections. Alternatively, make the article NPOV yourself if it's a big issue. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name-dropping, for want of a better description.

Hi. A few of the paragraphs in the article make reference to named social networking websites. This is fine as far as allowing one or two goes. For most of its time, just the most notable two have been quoted (far be it for me to name-drop them here!). However, especially in the lead-in, there are currently five. And I suspect there is a danger that the list might grow, as different editors decide to add their own personal favourite. We would end up with another smaller List of social networking websites, which would not be at all suitable.

I would like to gain consensus on this, and propose that NO examples be given in the lead-in, as they are not a qualification of the article title, which is what lead-ins are designed for (see Guide to writing better articles). I would also like to see an edit source warning (similar to the existing one about external links) to this effect, although I would understand if this was denied.

I will return to this page in 24 hours, hopefully there will be an opinion or two which will help us gauge whether there is consensus for this. However, if there is no response within 48 hours I will be bold and remove the examples. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 17:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No responses so far. I will return in 24 hours, and if there is no consensus by debate or discussion, I will make the above change. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse Leuko 21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
We have one endorsement, which establishes a very tenuous consensus of 2 to nought for the removal of the above. Consider it done. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) A side issue for this post might be to decide which are the most notable websites allowable as "such as" mentions. Until today, MySpace and Facebook were the only ones which consensus seemed to favour. However, a recent addition has been Bebo, and, given yesterday's news about its expansion, I for one don't feel it should be reverted. If any other editors have particular views on this, please post below. Indeed, if you feel more strongly about this than I, revert the addition. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FWIW

A service is not software. A mass of software supporting a service is NOT identical with the service. Lycurgus 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Nowhere in the article is there mentioned the term "a mass of software supporting a service". A social network service must have software to be electronically transmittable, by definition. This fact exists in the lead-in to establish that incontrovertible necessity. The article does not promote one type of software used to achieve the service, or another, or indeed any specific software. If such entries are made into the article, they are removed as spam.
Perhaps I have missed your point, but I cannot read any other meaning into your post. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The current opening six words of the article identify/equate the service with it's supporting software. Software and service are both intangibles and both involve human labor along with other attributes/properties they may have in common, but they're hardly identical, even in the case of, e.g. WSDL, SOA, etc., let alone in this case. Lycurgus 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps ambiguity would be dispelled if the lead-in went something like this:
"A social network service focuses on the building and verifying of online social networks for communities of people who share interests and activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others, which necessitates the use of software."
Please let me know if this is more appropriate wording, and we can then introduce it on a very slim consensus. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 00:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Dunno about appropriate but at least that's factual rather than counterfactual. Lycurgus 10:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a yes. Ref (chew)(do) 11:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts of Interest by editors

There has been a systematic campaign, first on Social Network and then on this page to assert the notability of Jonathan Bishop and the software he asserts to have invented, "Circle of Friends". Despite multiple requests for documentation, he (or suspected sockpuppets) have provided only a brief item in a local Welsh newspaper and a student term paper.

To give Mr. Bishop (who seems to use the Wikiname Welshaspie the benefit of the doubt, I polled the 2000 members of the Association of Internet Researchers and the 500 members of the Communication and Information Technologies section of the American Sociological Association. I also asked Fred Turner, who has written a book on the history of the Internet.(From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism.) Not one of these people has heard of Mr. Bishop or of his "Circle". Finally, danah boyd, a notable authority on the subject, said she recollected that Mr. Bishop had produced a minor, limited piece of software in the late 1990s. (boyd is writing an article for a scholarly journal on this subject that is not yet complete.) Hence I left in a reference to Mr. Bishop, but took out the undocumented self-promotion. I know I have done Original Research, but this is in order to be fair and leave stuff out, rather than put in undocumented assertions. Hence, I have just reverted suspected sockpuppet Multimedia Guru in the main article. I am sad for Welsh-Aspie, who has claimed discrimination against Asperger's people in response to polite requests for documentation. Bellagio99 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is worth making clear that Bellagio99 is now known to be Barry Wellman. It seems to me he is not willing to give credit to others in the field and is only seeking to self-promote in a self-aggrandizing way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogmamas (talk • contribs) 14:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, I went out of my way to ask others to contribute to this page, and I added a lot of references to others' work. This is not self-promotion. The only work I condensed is that of Jonathan Bishop, and that only after I went to a good deal of trouble to find out documentation for his contributions (see above). In the past, some of Mr Bishop's suspected sockpuppets (Welsh-Aspie, Multimedia Guru) couldn't accept this. Is User:Ogmamas (with minimal editing history), another sock-puppet? Concurrently with this, there is also simultaneous criticism of the Barry Wellman page by a known sock-puppet of Welsh-Aspie. However, the Wellman article was carefully reviewed by an admin. in November-December, and found largely OK -- with a few requested edits done. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I may not post here much, but I do stay in touch. I'm not who you think, but I do like hyperlinks. I don't write essays or papers, but I know Baz's capers. If you were TBL you'd not know me very well, but you're the mad professor so you should know me better. --Ogmamas (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Point of order: Due to its ever more personal nature, I believe this discussion now needs to be continued on the relevant user talk pages, as it wanders increasingly from the point, namely this article. This talk page is not for personal particularities regarding editors, who they are and whether we know them intimately or otherwise outside Wikipedia, and then what one editor thinks of another. Please do not disrupt. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 11:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dangers of Social Network Service

A well-intentioned user has posted a link about this from a German blog, pointing out the surveillance dangers of Facebook, et al. The article it links to is smart and raises intelligent points. However, I am afraid, that as it stands, it doesn't meet the criteria for adding to Wikipedia. For one thing, it is Original Research. For another, it is Opinion. For a third, blogs are hardly ever accepted as valid authorities for Wikipedia. For a fourth, it violates WP:Crystal (WP is not a crystal ball), which urges editor to avoid speculating on the future (altho I personally agree with the speculation). For a fifth, the writer does not have English as a first language, and there are many mistakes in syntax. It must be recalled that Wikipedia tries to be an Encyclopedia, and not a collection of comments. Sometimes I wonder if this is the correct policy, but it is the policy. Hence, I suggest that the author seek authoritative documentation for his/her points, state briefly the surveillance dangers of Social Network Software, add a link to Criticism of Facebook which does this in more detail, and write these brief points in a less speculative way, with proper English. Bellagio99 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Not for established experienced editors, obviously, but for the benefit of the editor trying to insert their link to a (mainly bloggish) external reference, let's rewind to the basics of writing an article in Wikipedia.
You don't just throw into an article an external link to a valid facet of a subject. You insert into the article (at length) a neutral dissertation on the aspect of the subject you wish to introduce. You then back up that information with as many detailed sources as you can, either in print form i.e. books, papers, etc., or from the internet, in the form of clickable links. Merely to suddenly introduce a whole new section (incorrectly headed "Weblinks" - this should be "External links", and should appear below "Notes" or "References"), containing a hyperlink which does not relate to anything yet discussed in the article, is utter folly. The editor needs to go back, without reverting the removal of the section and link, and create the relevant content to explain the nature and drawbacks of "dangers of social networks" - THEN back that up with his link, preferably in the "References" section, as the current article does not yet need any external links as I see it.
I too seek to be helpful to editors in good faith. However, should edits turn out to be nothing more than linkspam placements, I am cynical enough to campaign long and hard for their removal.
The anon doing the editing appears to be on a non-fixed IP, so there is no guarantee that a post to their talk page will provide the necessary guidance, as the next time they connect to their ISP, they will have a different anon userIP and therefore a different talk page. Warnings about vandalism and spam can be posted on a case by case basis to these different talk pages.
Best wishes to all interested editors. Ref (chew)(do) 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super-Nintendo?

Is the picture of a super-nintendo console related to social netowrk services? In any case, the pagination should be adjusted...

81.75.222.76 (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? What picture? There are no pictures in the article, as the subject is mostly theoretical and in any case dealt with by means of prose. Just for the record, there is no link between Super Nintendo and social network services. A Super Nintendo console is a piece of equipment, not a 'service' in the sense meant here. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 18:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beefing up discussion of research in the area

FYI, I put a note on the Association of Internet Researchers e-list 19Feb08, asking for a broader base of contributions to the article, given the developing research in the area. It's had some payoff, with a few editors posting germane references, especially to the work of researcher/editor danah boyd. I would hope that some research findings get posted as well as references. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that (your note to AoIR and the edits to the article). The edits need some work but it's nice to see the info being brought into the article. I was disappointed when I looked the other day and didn't seen any mention of the recent special issue of JCMC. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name Dropping (2) March 08

For some reason, this discussion started out of order -- higher in the page. I moved it to the end so we can easily find it and be sequential. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a proposal for another social network... it's called CareFlash and it's a medical social network. In my opinion, it's the best out there for a number of reasons. How about adding it to the list? Thanks. --Klostermankl (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any references establishing its notability? --ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, It had notability referenced by businesswire.com. There is/will be a wikipedia page. Check out CareFlash.com to check it out... it's good stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klostermankl (talk • contribs) 03:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A press release doesn't really establish notability... --ElKevbo (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is true Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline You would need more than a press release to create a Wikipedia article. You would be able to use industry review as a secondary source to establish notability. Igor Berger (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an independent notability source [1] requesting the article CareFlash to be undeleted to original to go through WP:AFD. Igor Berger (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The article still needs more work to establish notability as decided by consensus at deletion review. Please do not include an external link in Social network service. If the article CareFlash meets notability per Wikipedia you can add the article link to Social network services. Igor Berger (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has been restored to author's user space. User:Klostermankl/CareFlash. But I find it interesting and intriguing that the article in question went through some sort of deletion process in December 2007, it was marked CSD. But then it was kept with no refernces, that can be found, of a review and resolution. Looks like the CSD template was removed by User:Socialfly Special:Contributions/Socialfly, an original creator of this article, here And the article did not get to be deleted then but it has been properly deleted now. Igor Berger (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Social network service with Virtual community?

Oppose Both Social network service and Virtual community are articles that need help -- especially protection from link spam -- but they are not identical. There are many more kinds of virtual communities than social network services, and SNS such as Facebook are evolving into more than virtual communities. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Notwithstanding the preceding argument, if you attempt to merge the two articles, the new article will undoubtedly be too long (look at the relevant guideline regarding article length). It seems to me also that there is enough difference between the two concepts to warrant separate articles. Bear in mind that other "sprawling" articles tend to break off chunks into smaller articles of related subject matter (Main article: Suchandsuch - you must all have seen this from time to time). Trying to merge two articles of such great length is asking for logistical problems. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 01:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose They are very different. Social networking services contain virtual communities but are not communities in themselves. --Ogmamas (talk)

From my point of view, the articles are very similar. Can someone explain me what the differences are that should keep the pages separate (other than length)? Thank you.--Kozuch (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr/Ms Kozuch, I think they are fundamentally different, as I stated above, albeit with some overlap. The term "Virtual Community" has been around since the mid-1990s (if not earlier). It encompasses not only social network services (such as MyFace), but blogs, listservs, communities of practice, Usenet groups, BBS/Bulletin Board Services, etc. Virtual communities are group centered, in that all in a VC relate to each other in principle. Furthermore, many organizations have their own within-group virtual communities to discuss issues of interest.

By contrast, "social network services" describe individuals at the center of their personal networks: their friends, news, and tastes (musical, etc.). So the perspective is quite different. While such networks connect, they are still individual-centered.

Thank you for your question: it is only until I wrote this, that I took the time to think it through -- and I'm supposed to know something about the subject! Bellagio99 (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I fully support this explanation - there is a context difference at work, and I believe it is safer not to merge, given the new input. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging without declaration of intent?

Hi. Noted the recent introduction of social network aggregation into this article. If this is merely referencing towards the separated subject matter, through their obvious ties in the social network service sphere, then good. If the edit is intended to pre-empt an existing discussion on AfD of the sister subject, it's a bit previous. Allow the AfD to close before any further action please. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Question on the inclusion of social networking sites that I don't find in the source listed

I'm completely new to wiki-ing so please go easy on me and let me know if I'm doing this wrong, but I have a question about a part of the intro section -- "Friendster, Orkut, CyWorld and Mixi in Asia and the Pacific Islands.[5]" When I clicked on the source (as referenced by the [5]) I was unable to find Mixi at all, and the only mention I found of CyWorld was in that it used the service run by ComScore. Neither was listed as a top social networking service in Asia.

Also, I question the use of this article as a reference for which sites are most popular in various parts of the world due to the fact that the heading of that specific chart explains that it is only referencing "Selected Social Networking Sites". That means it's a biased listing from the get-go.Barefootmeg (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2008

Dear Barefootmeg, You ask good questions. The informal policy has been that this article not become a list repository for the many 100s of social networking services out there. That's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory. Every week, there are editors who post the name, link and often some promo material about their favorite service. Often, it seems that they are the persons behind that service. (One indicator is that this is the only Wikipedia edit they have ever made.) All claim that their service is wonderful or fills a unique need.

For that reason, this article has evolved to be about social networking services in general, and not in particular. However, it does seem reasonable to give a few examples, such as MySpace, and that's what happened. For better or worse, the magazine article has been used as a criterion -- it was a responsible, evidence-based piece. You're now claiming that 2 other services got slipped into the article without being on the criterion list. If so, you could well edit them out. None of us "own" the article. We're just editors like you. But I do think that opening up the article to a huge list of services would open a can of worms.

Cheers, Bellagio99 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)