Talk:Social media/Archive 2

Reliability of article published by David Publishing
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)


 * The link is blacklisted, and this is interfering with archiving. I have redacted the link, and will manually archive this section. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Social Media Privacy
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. 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

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110403102611/http://technology.inc.com/internet/articles/201003/leary.html to http://technology.inc.com/internet/articles/201003/leary.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227051329/http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/the-cascading-effects-of-the-arab-spring-28575/ to http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/the-cascading-effects-of-the-arab-spring-28575/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006012638/http://www.salihsarikaya.com/en/social-media-ban-in-turkey-what-does-it-mean-by-salih-sarikaya/ to http://www.salihsarikaya.com/en/social-media-ban-in-turkey-what-does-it-mean-by-salih-sarikaya/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725031158/http://www.edelman.com/trust/2008/ to http://www.edelman.com/trust/2008/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207045914/https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Working_Papers/Digital_News_Report_2013.pdf to https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Working_Papers/Digital_News_Report_2013.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.mortgagecalculatorx.ca/mac/c/6.805/student-papers/fall05-papers/facebook.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525205708/http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/-in-the-search-for-two-tri-state-missing-persons-contrasting-pictures-of-social-medias-role-emerge to http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/-in-the-search-for-two-tri-state-missing-persons-contrasting-pictures-of-social-medias-role-emerge
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525213413/http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/brogan-dulle-missing-update-family-of-brogan-dulle-makes-emotional-plea-for-his-return to http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/brogan-dulle-missing-update-family-of-brogan-dulle-makes-emotional-plea-for-his-return
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525213635/http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/brogan-dulle-timeline-retracing-the-last-known-steps-of-the-missing-uc-student to http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/brogan-dulle-timeline-retracing-the-last-known-steps-of-the-missing-uc-student

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment to Danielleee g
@ 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)

Addition to Negative Effects
Three researchers at Blanquerna University, Spain, examined how adolescents interact with social media and specifically. 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. While on the other hand, the researchers say that males like to portray themselves as strong, independent, and powerful. 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. 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.


 * 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)

Why this wikipedia is work for my Argument Essay?
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
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)

History of social media?
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)

History Section
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 (talk • contribs) 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'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)

Responding to "does not cite any sources" tag
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)

Article Updates
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)

Internet usage effects
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 (talk • contribs) 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

Concentration
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)

Social media definition
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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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)

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)

Evaluation of the article
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)

Social Media & Loneliness
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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Adding infomation on Privacy and Employers
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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clhenderson99 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone of the section on interpersonal effects of social media
I vetted the sources being cited in the subject section (Social media). 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
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
 * 4) Viral content
 * 5) Automation
 * 6) Social authority
 * 7) Patents of social media technology
 * 8) Statistics on usage and membership
 * 9) Most popular social networks
 * 10) Social media usage
 * 11) Use of social media by organizations
 * 12) Use of social media by businesses
 * 13) Social media mining
 * 14) Social media in politics
 * 15) Use of social media during recruitment and hiring
 * 16) Commercialization
 * 17) Social media marketing
 * 18) Use of social media by individuals
 * 19) Use of social media as a news source
 * 20) Forming and maintaining interpersonal relationships
 * 21) Self-presentation
 * 22) Use of social media to improve health
 * 23) Content creation
 * 24) Use of social media in career preparation
 * 25) Effects of social media
 * 26) Disparity
 * 27) Ideological polarization
 * 28) Stereotyping
 * 29) Cognition and memory
 * 30) Physical and mental health
 * 31) Effects on youth communication
 * 32) Criticism, debate and controversy
 * 33) Trustworthiness and reliability
 * 34) Critique of social media activism
 * 35) Ownership of social media content
 * 36) Privacy
 * 37) Criticism of commercialization on social media
 * 38) Debate over addiction to social media
 * 39) Debate over using social media in academic settings
 * 40) Censorship

In more detail, the change would look like this:

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

Addition

 * 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 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 01 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply 31-OCT-2018
Please open a new template at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the requested information and corrections. Regards,  Spintendo   06:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.

Merging 'social networking service' and 'social media'
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)

Some proposed changes
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.

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


 * 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." 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)


 * 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." 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.


 * 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. 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." 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
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  and  tags?

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

Political Polarization
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
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)
 * Wikipedia already has an article about social media addiction. Jarble (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I know I created it after all these discussions E.3 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Addition of an image for mental health effects
@GermanJoe Thanks for redirecting me to this page.

I'm trying to upload this to this section. Please let me know your suggestions on the same. As I'm relatively new to professional editing on Wikipedia, multiple uploads led to an unintended edit war. I've tried to make the most recent upload textually neutral based on earlier feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avimanyu786 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , please sign messages on talkpages and discussion forums with 4 tilde characters ~ at the end to create an automatic signature with timestamp. Thank you. Regarding your question: such graphics, like any other content on Wikipedia, should be based on expert sources, for example a WP:MEDRS-compliant publication that covered this aspect. Aside from reliability of the depicted information, the image also simplifies the relationship between social media and mental processing that is likely far more complex. If you could find a freely licensed expert graph about this aspect, it could be included of course. But this particular self-made image isn't suitable for an encyclopedia in this particular context. GermanJoe (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the detailed feedback from your end. Avimanyu786 (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Image for intro
I think it would be nice to have an image in the intro section of this article. Any suggestions? Sdkb (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Contributions
Does social media contribute a positive or a negative impact to teenage behaviour. Zikhundla125 (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Modification in Characteristics of Social Media
In addition to user generated content, we added "user shared content" because a lot of content comes from existing information in social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.184 (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, thank you for your contribution to the article. I believe that the text you added is slightly repetitive. "User-shared" content is included under the umbrella of "user-generated" as well as "data generated through all online interactions". I should add that it is questionable whether "user-shared" is an accurate term as this doesn't appear in the literature cited, thus a potential question of WP:Verifiability. Happy to discuss this further. Best, --Jaobar (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Social Media frauds?
Is it good to have a List of Social media frauds? Do you remember the fraudster couple who raised money for a homeless veteran, here is a clip (here). Another one is a woman who adopted a autistic child from China for the same purpose (here).--Kiatdd (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal
There is a lot of overlap between this article and Social networking service as discussed above. The previous discussion is two years old. I myself was confused when trying to find an article to describe social media/networking services such as LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and Snapchat. Does anyone have any advice on a merge? -- Buffaboy talk 03:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As someone who researches this stuff, I don't recommend merging the articles. There are distinct audiences for the two articles, with the audience for SNS being considerably smaller. Furthermore, social media functionality differs from SNS services specifically, with the former being a much broader construct as compared to the latter. Happy to discuss this further, if interested. --Jaobar (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As this thread doesn't seem to be generating comments, I recommend that we remove the flag. I recommend keeping the two articles separate. Best, --Jaobar (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly find myself struggling greatly to understand the distinction between "social media" and "social networking service" even after reading your post. It doesn't help that the latter's article lists "social media" as an alternative name, and the old discussion on the other article's Talk page points out that it seems the two terms appear to have a "promotional, consumer-oriented" vs. "technical, neutral-sounding" contrast. MarqFJA87 (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Article length
I removed the warning tag because it's just tag spam. This article is long and would benefit from splitting. I'll take a look and see if there's any obvious splitting I can do. Please feel free to do more or to present ideas how to fix the problem. Be a fixer, not a tag bomber. Jehochman Talk 13:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that is too long. I think a good section to split off may be the controversy section. Additionally, there are many Wikipedia sub-articles about social media that are referenced in this article, and streamlining the information presented in this document would be useful. Moofinberry Talk 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we remove the section on Malcolm Gladwell?
From the research I've done, I've come to the conclusion that Malcolm Gladwell is fundamentally *not a reliable source*. Here are some links: https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/malcolm-gladwell-critique-david-and-goliath-misrepresents-the-science.html https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/29/malcolm-gladwell-david-and-goliath-interview

He has admitted to falsifying data in the interests of making a compelling story. I believe we shouldn't cite him at all. What do you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asbruckman (talk • contribs) 17:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A rewrite from better refs, especially independent sources, seems a better approach, unless it's clear that such sources don't exist. --Hipal (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead image?
The current lead image (File:Social Media.jpg) shows a photo of a cellphone with some apps on it. However, most of these apps are not what I would consider "social media," and as such this may confuse readers. Is there a more suitable image that could be used? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I support a change but cannot suggest an alternative image.
 * I nominated the image for deletion due to copyright violation. The twitter bird and snapchat ghost are copyrighted images prominently featured here to communicate the subject of the image.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Social Media.jpg

Social Media in today’s world is a network of application that people can use to share and create with people across the globe. The first social media website was created in 1997 with the site “Six Degrees.” The idea didn’t fully catch on until 2005 when Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook. Since then, 75% of the world’s population is engaging in social media across hundreds of platforms.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/#find-out-more

https://online.maryville.edu/blog/evolution-social-media/ Drew.williams15 (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021 proposed merge with Social networking service
There is a merge discussion at Talk:Social networking service. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review
Organization: I think that your information is organized in a clear way that’s easy to follow. They started with the first social media and formed their organization in chronological order. Balance: There is no information that seems unnecessary and I actually think that more information could’ve been included. Some information that could’ve been added is more information regarding other social media that was created. Like what was the next social media website after “Six Degrees”. No, this article is not arguing a certain point and is very fair. Neutrality: The only part I could see that would maybe be unneutral is the part that says, “The idea didn’t fully catch on until 2005,”. You could say that this is an opinion because there’s no facts to support it. Like there could’ve been some statistics about the users of Six Degrees vs. the users of Facebook. No, this author does not make any claims on an unnamed group of people. I think that this article is very neutral. It’s not showing anything in a negative or positive way but just facts. Reliability: These statements are from reliable sources such as textbooks and journal articles. One of the sources is from a .edu website and another one is from a .org website. These are very reliable sources and aren’t biased from what I looked over. No, there aren’t any statements that rely heavily on one or two sources. After reading through the articles, the information in the articles could be found on the websites and sources listed.

In my opinion, I think that this is a really good start. The information was simple and easy to follow. The sources were good and reliable, plus the information in the article was found on the sources page. The information was represented in a way that wasn’t plagiarism. I really liked the statistic that you put in though. The criticism I would give this article is that I think it was too short. You could’ve added more information like other social media that came before Facebook. ````Kaylin Gomes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgomes11 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hoffma51. Peer reviewers: Jnunez96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LoeAsh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sdcox004.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KylaNBrathwaite1996.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sheldond51.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kamryngood, Addisonronk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmcdavi. Peer reviewers: Jonahx11!.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Psaltele.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 October 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Masonbeck17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kimberlyguzman23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shenshi0603.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexisgoldye.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KateKeWu, Yueyuemia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Keneeso.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 8 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JACS95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mkaras0603.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Giannamorfesi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 March 2021 and 2 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bellampelegrin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Drew.williams15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Seanaboy24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Green0829.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jebrice.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amber MWY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing merge label
Greetings,

As it appears the discussion is resolved, I'm removing the potential merge label. --Jaobar (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue
— Assignment last updated by Fy2072 (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communication and Culture
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giannamorfesi (talk • contribs) 15:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment 2022-01-13 to 2022-04-16
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luoyan liu (talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment 2022-01-12 to 2022-04-22
— Assignment last updated by Haipeng Li 888 (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media Innovations
— Assignment last updated by Bigtimenaenae (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254
— Assignment last updated by Meardsley (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Carnegie Mellon University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Social Media.jpg

Impact of Social Media on Mental Health
Social media addiction can lead to an increase in aggravating mental problems. This is because social media can lead you to become withdrawn from other people since as humans we need companionship. HexC3D (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by KristinaAllen (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi Protected Edit Request
A 2017 study of almost 6,000 adolescent students showed that those who self-reported addiction-like symptoms of social media use were more likely to report low self-esteem and high levels of depressive symptoms. From the findings on a population-based study, there is about 37% increase in the likelihood of major depression among adolescents. In a different study conducted in 2007, those who used the most multiple social media platforms (7 to 11) had more than three times the risk of depression and anxiety than people who used the fewest (0 to 2).Not only has it increased depression and anxiety, but it also has increased the suicide rate of today’s youth and young adults, leading it to be the second leading cause of death among the ages 10-34.(source: https://www.newswise.com/articles/10-year-study-shows-elevated-suicide-risk-from-excess-social-media-time-for-teen-girls)

Looking at friends' stories or posts of them attending parties, music festivals, vacations and other events on various social media applications can lead users to feel left out and upset because they are not having as much fun as others. This is a very common issue between young people using certain apps and it continues to affect their personal well-being. Social media creates loneliness but finding someone to talk to can help ease the fear of missing out, which is why companionship is important and can decrease those feelings. (source:https://www.companiions.com/blog/companionship/what-is-companionship-and-why-is-it-important-when-combating-loneliness-and-isolation) Nat842 (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)