Talk:Social network

Untitled
This article has been split from social network analysis. For discussion of that topic, see the talk page: Talk:social network analysis. The present article is intended to be an introduction and outline for further editing and has been marked with several areas in need of expansion. Meclee (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Have re-routed some links to this page to social networking service. Next task is to create a disambiguation page Social_network_(disambiguation). Meclee (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Updated disambiguation page Social_network_(disambiguation) and created similar page Social_networking_(disambiguation). Meclee (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection against autoposting of external links to social networking sites. Meclee (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC) The request was denied. Meclee (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories for this article
Many editors want to place information about the process building personal social networks or about social networking services in this article. Please avoid putting this article into categories related to 'social networking', including the category 'Social networks.'Meclee (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Conference on social network analysis
The big one in the field is at Redondo Beach (LA) March 14-18. Please post if you are going. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Theory clusters
I have no idea what is going on with this section as it includes academic domains (communication, organization studies, etc.), subfields (demography, economic sociology, etc.), and concepts (structural holes, diffusion of innovations, etc.) all mixed together. These subsections are clearly unfocused and unfairly balkanized in addition to being extremely incomplete and their content tangential (patronizing statements about communication just being a mix of other fields isn't exactly topical to summarizing social networks). Judging by the templated comment, is this intended to be a laundry list of every significant theory about networks in every domain? I surely hope not and I hope other editors will help me better scope and constrain off of extant rather than evidently ad hoc frameworks. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Between Kadhushin's 2012 book and Wasserman & Faust 1994, I think their table of contents as units of analysis and general organization are more apropos to follow throughout the article. This isn't to say that they're completely compatible, but they're surely an improvement over having the potpourri present now. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Historical and theoretical foundations (summarizing Freeman book plus complex systems and physicist contributions)
 * Types of data and networks (unipartite/bipartite, directed/undirected, signed, valued/weighted, multigraph/hypergraph)
 * Structural and locational properties (centrality/prestige, balance/transitivity, cohesion & subgroups, affiliation/community detection)
 * Role and positions (equivalence, blockmodels)
 * Statistical models (random, scale free/power law, small world, triad census, p*/ERGM)
 * Dynamics and longitudinal models (influence/contagion, homophily/selection, coevolution)
 * On second thought a lot of the meat in parentheses should really be in social network analysis whilst consensus seemed to be this article should focus more on theories and findings like weak ties, propinquity, structural holes, homophily, social capital, cohesion, balance, preferential attachment, small world. Which brings us back to square one about structuring this article more rigorously. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Madcoverboy, I completely agree with your first and second thoughts here. The article should be about theories / findings, but there should be a better way of organizing them.  Brainstorming off the top of my head, the first thing that comes to mind is something like


 * Theoretical principles
 * Principles of formation (homophily, balance, propinquity, etc)
 * Structural features (weak ties, small world, complex contagion theory, etc)
 * Networks as resources (social capital, structural holes)


 * Perspective on social life
 * Identities as network locations
 * Markets as networks (economic sociology)
 * Social exchange
 * Discourses as networks (Bearman and Stovel, etc)


 * Empirical findings (which should probably be further subdivided)
 * Personal networks ("Friends and family", "Bowling alone", debate over shrinkage, etc)
 * Criminal networks
 * ... ad infinitum.


 * I'm sure I've missed all sorts of stuff here, but this seems somewhat coherent to me. - Darwin/Peacock  [Talk] 23:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Review
This article is quite trustworthy, unbiased, complete, and accurate. It seems to be a well written article that focus on the major issues around social networks both online and in real world communities.

--Silnan Tol (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Page Move discussion Suggestion
I suggest moving this page title to: Social network (sociology). Increasingly, new articles (typically about some new social networking service) link to this article instead of the social networking service article. I am notified every time this happens and have to go in and correct the internal link. I suggest creating "social network" as a DAB page once the move is accomplished. This shouldn't be too controversial, but I am posting here before implementing a move to see if there are objections that should be raised. Meclee (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Social network → Social Network (social science) – Far too many editors assume "social network" has only one meaning and add or change articles about specific Social networking services and add a Social network link without checking to see if it is an appropriate link. As the creator of this page, I am notified of such new links and try to catch them and change the link to the more appropriate Social networking service, but cannot keep up with all the new links. By changing this article's name and allowing the Social network link to re-direct to Social_network_(disambiguation), DAB solvers can notify editors that they need to DAB the link. Meclee (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a social network is simply one overarching concept embodying all of the kinds of networks which operate sociologically. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a broad concept that has application not only to the social sciences, but also to information and complexity sciences. If adding of links becomes problematic (which I don't feel it is), we can discuss page protection, but "social networks" as a concept is broadly understood in scholarship outside of digital media and furthermore historically predates these services, so I see no reason to demote its status to a DAB page. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Added title
In which year social networking term come. Rishinaman (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Future move request
I was in the hospital and did not get to respond to the opposing positions above. Facebook, LinkedIn, and various other sites and their copycats are not social networks. They are social networking services. Yes, the theory broadly applies but is not the same as the technology of implementation of the theoretical. The above posters did not feel it is a problem because they do not receive the notifications. I will wait a couple of weeks before I again request a move. Meclee (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Social network → Social network (social sciences) – DAB Meclee (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a prevalent tendency for Social network to be confounded with Social networking service, e.g., WebsiteX is a social network owned by CompanyY. New and revised articles about social networking services are created almost daily with many editors simply adding the internal- link Social network -- without checking to see if the link is correct -- when they actually are referring to a Social networking service. As the editor who created this page, I am notified of new links to it from other articles and find these incorrect links. It would be better to have the term Social network point only to a DAB page where editors can choose the correct term for their particular article.
 * Still oppose as a regular page will serve this purpose even better by providing greater context for these options. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -There is greater context for the options, but editors are not being directed to it since they are not looking at this page. There is a concept DAB linked to at the top of this page. Editors are not checking if a link to social network is appropriate; they assume social network ONLY has the meaning of Social networking service. Meclee (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This should include Facebook, etc., and be a concept dab but should not move. Red Slash 02:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -There is a concept DAB linked to at the top of this page. It does not help since the editors in question are not looking at this page.   Editors are not checking if a link to social network is appropriate; they assume social network ONLY has the meaning of Social networking service. Meclee (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per user:Madcoverboy: This is a wp:broad concept that has application not only to the social sciences, but also to information and complexity sciences. If adding of links becomes problematic (which I don't feel it is), we can discuss page protection, but "social networks" as a concept is broadly understood in scholarship outside of digital media and furthermore historically predates these services, so I see no reason to demote its status to a DAB page. walk victor falktalk 07:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Page protection will not address the problem. user:Madcoverboy's earlier objection does not apply to the actual problem.  As I've tried to make more clear, here, the problem is inappropriate links from other pages to this page, as in the example: WebsiteX is a social network owned by CompanyY.  No one "owns" a social network; the reference is to a  Social networking service. Editors are not checking if a link to social network is appropriate; they assume social network ONLY has the meaning of Social networking service.  Yes, the concept is also used in information science and complexity science; in those contexts they are referring to the social science concept of social networks. The usage in those sciences does not pre-date its usage in social sciences. Meclee (talk)
 * That many editors don't even bother to check what they are linking to is unfortunate, but we shouldn't give up because of their laziness, for the same reasons that we don't move Avatar (2009 film) to Avatar. wp:Hatnotes are perfectly sufficient to take care of the problem, they are designed expressly and explicitly for that. walk victor falktalk 18:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - As stated above, there is a hatnote on the page. The hatnote doesn't do any good if no one is reading it before linking to the page.  Meclee (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A social networking service is simply one means of carrying forward a social network. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A means is not an end and should not be confounded with an end. In this case, the means involves a technology that allows one to extend or expand indirect relationships in a network.  It is not the social network itself.  A social network cannot consist only of virtual relationships without direct relationships in co-presence. Meclee (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close. I've stated my opposition to this move as recently as a month ago. We should not be structuring the encyclopedia around the path of least effort and conflict as Meclee is arguing -- we respond to inaccurate edits by correcting them and redirecting them. We've had previous discussions above and there is a clear consensus against this move and reintroducing the request over and over is disruptive. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment and full discussion - As noted above,  Madcoverboy earlier objections were based on an inaccurate reading of the problem.  I am not advocating the path of least effort but a path of correction through re-direct.  Editors should be notified when they fail to properly identify the correct link to Social networking service in their edits.  This can best be accomplished through re-direct and robots such as  DPL bot. I advocate at least a full 7 day discussion. Meclee (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

And this is different than the Social Web?
I am having trouble discerning that this is different than the "Social Web". Both tend to discuss the same items, this as a " theoretical concept" and I suppose "Social Web" as a concrete example? Yet neither reference each other and appear to have similar content. ---jim 10:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilleke (talk • contribs)

George Floyd
This can go to a certain extent.. Mc Mcbll (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction
These two sentences contradict, insofar as they define social network in ways that are incompatible:

1. "A social network is a social structure made up of a set of social actors (such as individuals or organizations), sets of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors."

2. "The social network is a theoretical construct useful in the social sciences to study relationships between individuals, groups, organizations, or even entire societies (social units, see differentiation)."

Is a social network an intersubjective thing, that operates in the physical world, or is it a construct, part of a perspective for analyzing some set of such things? I think the latter is correct.

Under definition #1, how is a social network different from any other social structure? ALL social structures are composed of social actors and relations among them. It implies that social interactions between actors are different than relational ties, but relations are patterns of interactions. Putting both separately is simply a matter of scale, like listing forests and trees as separate items.

Also, less crucially, there is no reference to objects in either definition. Relationships and interactions between actors do not exist in conceptual isolation between two actors, but in a social context consisting of a universe of objects, including various forms of capital and opportunity structures, that are often integral to the relations.

"Blended networking" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Blended networking and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"Social networking" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Social networking and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)