Talk:Networked Society
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Work Cited
Smith Pfister, Damien, and Jordan Soliz. "(Re)Conceptualizing Intercultural Communication In A Networked Society." Journal Of International & Intercultural Communication 4.4 (2011): 246-251. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.
Hassan, Robert. "Networked Time And The "Common Ruin Of The Contending Classes." Triplec (Cognition, Communication, Co-Operation): Open Access Journal For A Global Sustainable Information Society 11.2 (2013): 359-374. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.
Sinnreich, Aram, Nathan Graham, and Aaron Trammell. "Weaving A New 'Net: A Mesh-Based Solution For Democratizing Networked Communications." Information Society 27.5 (2011): 336-345. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.
Campbell, Heidi A. "Religion And The Internet: A Microcosm For Studying Internet Trends And Implications." New Media & Society 15.5 (2013): 680-694. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.
Prigogine, Ilya . "The Networked Society." Journal of World-Systems Research [Online], 6.3 (2000): 892-898. Web. 12 Nov. 2016
McLoughlin, Catherine, and Mark JW Lee. "Future learning landscapes: Transforming pedagogy through social software." Innovate: Journal of Online Education 4.5 (2008): 1. Web 12 Nov. 2016
Origins[edit]
Looking at all of the sources they are all put out by one company, Ericsson. The company doesn't seem biased they are just facts about networked society. The sources include youtube and slide share which are not 100% reliable but the content that is on there is put out by Ericsson. There is one outside source other than Ericsson that was put out and it was an article from TechChurch. I feel this article needs to be more diverse with the sources instead of all of the information from one company via different sources. The information seems to be reliable because it is said in more than one place but it is the same source in different places. Checking each of the citations, They are all still alive and working. There is not much that is written in the article, and everything has a source to back it up. These sources are strictly facts. There does not seem to be biased, the content here are just facts about networked society. They are all form the same source so it may be biased because there is not a variety of sources. There is not much on the topic but what is there is very relevant to what networked society is there. There is not anything that distracts you because there is only background information on the topic. The article is very neutral. Even though it it is from mostly one source, there are only facts from the source. There is only background information on this topic. There is no position where the audience is swayed to think about networked society in a certain way. There is no view point that is overrepresented. There are a lot of points that are not there so they are clearly underrepresented. There needs to be more information all together about this topic. None of the information is outdated because it is just background information, there does need to be more information presented. Something that could be added is how it has an impact on society. This is very helpful to know when trying to put networked society into perspective. Andreaosborne (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete this arrticle[edit]
This is totally subsumed by the much longer and better article Network Society. This one reads like an Erickson press release. Unless I am told otherwise, I am going to send to AFD, Articles for Deletion, and write a link to some of these points into the Network Society article. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)