Talk:Social graphs

I believe that an entry for 'social graphs' should exist for the same reason that one for 'social network' exists - it is a phenomenon and not just a word requiring a definition (which would place it in the Wiktionary). Actually, the term should not be 'social graphs' (pl) but 'social graph' (singular), but Wikipedia automatically re-directs 'social graph' (singular) to 'social network.' I.e. Wikipedia essentially makes it impossible to create an entry for 'social graph.'  The entry I made was to justify why 'social graph' should have its own entry.

Although it has been argued that 'social network' and 'social graph' are the same thing, "Robert Scoble posted a response today in which he says that your social network is who you know, while your social graph is who you're connected to based on interests, location, work, etc. "The Social Graph is NOT my social network," Scoble writes. "My Social Network is my friends list. But the Social Graph shows a LOT more than that" (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/is_it_time_to_retire_the_social_graph.php). I'm not making a phenomenological argument about the difference between social networks and social graphs.  I'm making an argument about the difference between a model based on binary connections (social network based on yes/no friendship) and a model based on different types of connections (social graph based on yes/no friend, co-worker, etc.).  I consider this difference a significant one, and agree with Scoble (along with Zuckerberg, Fitzpatrick, etc.) that it's useful to ascribe 'social network' to the former and 'social graph' to the latter.

Do people agree? If not, perhaps this discussion can be added to social network?


 * Personally, I'd liket o add it to social network. That article isn't too long at this point, and users will probably find it more useful to have both topics on the same page.  We can then redirect this page there.  If we did decide to have an article by this name, I could easily move it to the singular version and have this page redirect there. Mbisanz (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence A social graph therefore conceives of connections in a typological way, whereas a social graph does so in a binary/spectral way. doesn't make sense. Which way is it meant to be? --Chr4004 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)