Talk:Social network analysis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wiktionary

Can this be expanded, or should it go to Wiktionary? Wetman 12:00, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Metrics

The description of many metrics is unclear and confusing. I suggest somebody who knows the topic (sorry, I do not) should improve this section. I understood what these metrics are only by googling and reading other websites. —Precedingunsigned comment added by137.111.220.166 (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

The section "Quantities in Social Network Analysis" is very poorly written. It would be nice if somebody knowledgable in the topic could rewrite it in a more comprehensible way.


Theterm "Social network" should redirect to the page called "Social network analysis" & not vice versa. This is because, in google/yahoo search results, wrong results are coming when we search for "social networking" —Preceding unsigned comment added byArun.saba (talk •contribs) 09:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dunbar's 150 rule

Disregarding the fact that I don't have access to the paper itself, I think Wikipedia will do a better service to its users if it links directly to Dunbar's findings relating the "150 rule". I also suggest that its name to be attached to the number, instead of it be presented as a 'magic' number on the current page.

FYI, the reference to the original article by Dunbar is:

R.I.M Dunbar, "Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates," Journal of Human Evolution (1992), vol. 20, pp. 469-493. —The preceding unsignedcomment was added by 200.225.194.49 (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2004.

  • That paper's here, but it's a preprint - I don't know if anything altered in the final publication, but the tables are screwed up in this one. Still, it gets the gist... Shimgray 18:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Heh, I thought the same thing, and without taking a look at the talk page, blithely added the link as a parenthetical reference. I can't believe this has languished for over two years without getting linked! Be bold! I also thought about blindly linking it like 150 people, but I thought it would be better to cite the *name* in the text. The only downside is that, indeed, it is parenthetical -- and there are already two other parenthetical sections in that paragraph. If anyone else can think of a way to work it into the text in a more fluid fashion, please boldly do so. Matt B. 07:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Image

I am happy that someone wants to create a new social network image (I did the current one in MS Paint). It is important that any new picture show not just nodes, but also the links or ties that connect them, since those are both mentioned prominently in the article and are also key to any sort of social network analysis or analysis of social capital. Any diagram should be able to illustrate centrality, closed and open groups, social holes, and social bridges/brokers. Feel free to make the one I put together nicer, but I don't think that we should use a version that has no ties at all. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about uk:Зображення:Social network.svg? --VictorAnyakin 07:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

I propose that all the external links on the "Examples of Internet social networking systems, otherwise known as YASNS" section be completely removed. It's a linkspam magnet. Either the site is relevant enough to merit its own Wikipedia article (and we should link to the article instead of the site), or it's not (and probably linkspam). --cesarb 01:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a long-time contributor to (and often regulator of) this article, I agree in principle but disagree in practice. Without the YASNS links, people put linkspam directly in the article, now, at least, it is limited to that section. People add linkspam several times a day, which would make the administrative load too high for this article if there wasn't a place for people to put it. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
WEAK AGREE I too prefer that the page not be used for advertising purposes, but I also agree that it's much more manageable with all of the external links in one somewhat-maintainable spot. That said, I would prefer that the link descriptions were less... advertise-y. In particular, I've removed a couple of choice phrases like "and more!", etc. --Alan Au 02:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I propose that external links be limited to a one-sentence description. Comments? --Alan Au 22:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Again, I agree, but how would we enforce it? If you are willing to, great, otherwise I think we will have to keep editing all the time, which isn't worth it. --Goodoldpolonius223:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I propose to limit the list to one link to The SNS Meta List, they are doing a much better job of collecting the YASNS links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by82.149.68.78 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2005
A good idea, but I agree with CesarB that it's better to have an inclusive (but maintainable) policy so that people are less likely to put external links into the article text. Also, I'm wary of giving the appearance that Wikipedia is in any way "endorsing" the SNS meta list, whether that's the intent or not.--Alan Au 18:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

suggested additions

I just stumbled upon this article and want to suggest a couple of additions:

  1. "(Social) networking" is often used to describe the act of building your own social network. I don't know if an article can be written about it, but it seems that this sense of the word deserves a mention. Maybe this would just be opening up the article to "original research", but there are a number of (non-internet) institutions that are used to develop one's social network--ranging from country clubs, to cocktail parties, to formal education, and charity galas along with all that other junk you see in the "society" page of your newspaper.
  2. Similar analyses are being used in biology. Small world phenomenon kinda gets into it. I guess this is my field, so when I have some time and remember the issues, I'll see how this fits into this article or related articles.

AdamRetchless 03:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Tentatively, I would avoid adding anything unless it can be externally supported. That said, it might be worthwhile checking around to find literature on "informal" networking. (http://www.asis.org) --Alan Au 20:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Object-centered Sociality

Valuable criticism: http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why_some_social.html

Basically, he says that point-and-spoke models of relationships don't work, if the relationships all have different objects. The failing of the social network software is that it fails to account for the objects: they focus almost entirely on the people.

This article, too, seems to focus mostly on the people and their relationships, but not on their objects. The relationship is frequently named explicitly, but that does not make a social network.

That is, it does not make sense to say that I share a Social Network with a friend of my friend who I don't know. Instead, I share a social network with the people in my part of my company, because we all interact with one another. But I do not share a social network with one of the other employees' children.

I am explaining an idea here, and I don't know if it makes sense to put this idea in the article just on the merit of my bringing it up here. ButKarin Knorr Cetina is a sociology, and she has described this theory in great detail. She is a professor of sociology writing about these kinds of ideas. That implies to me that this warrents inclusion in the article.

I myself learned this idea from The Case for Object-Centered Sociality.


LionKimbro

I think some of the confusion here is the difference between social networking as a catagory of software (like LinkedIn) and social network theory more broadly. Social network software may suffer some of the flaws discussed -- it arbitrarily creates "networks" by linking people together, but these are not social networks in a sociological sense. Social network theory is based on mapping relationships between individuals and groups as they actually exist, and plays a prominent role in a lot of sociological research about knowledge diffusion, power in organizations, and learning. Social network theory is capable of making distinctions between those who share networks for work or a project, and those who do so purely for social reasons -- it is not just "hub and spoke." Actor-network theory and related approaches are actually subfields within the broader social network world. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

CASOS (Carnegie Mellon)

I moved the inline references to the CMU CASOS site and project over to the "External links" section. While the CMU program seems like a great resource, I'm not convinced (based on the link description) that it is sufficiently fundamental to understanding social network theory that it would warrant special mention in the article text. In particular, my understanding is that Wikipedia tends to shy away from discussion of ongoing research. That said, please feel free to re-integrate the text into the main article, but a more thorough explanation of the significance would be greatly appreciated. --Alan Au 08:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

While I am not associated with CASOS, I would say they are one of the top places in the world doing research both on the theory and the application of social networks. I would suggest they *do* deserve to be in the article text, it would be like removing discussion of Robert Oppenheimer's role in the creation of the atomic bomb -- they're really that fundamental to the work being done with social networks. Again, I'm not with CASOS; I'm at Emory University, so this is a outsider's opinion as to their importance.68.223.56.104 19:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear 69.223.56.104 (you don't have a User page so I can't talk with you there), CASOS is a good place and worthy of mention along with a half-dozen others. But gosh, do you think that they are as central as Oppenheimer? Kathleen Carley of CASOS wouldn't say that. I don't think you have the breadth of experience and historical depth to say that. Irvine, Toronto, Florida, Groningen, Slovenia come to quick mind as just as important. YMMV. Bellagio99 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
But 68.223.56.104 can be contacted - at 68.223.56.104. A talk page is not dependent on an account.
Also, to be honest, to surmise as to whether someone has "breadth of experience and historical depth" is just speculation, is it not - unless you know this "academic from Emory University" personally? Try not to introduce personal judgmental aspects into these article discussions, unless you can back them up. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ref (thanks for another useful tip -- about talk pages). I think I can back up what I say by elimination. I have gone to almost every social network conference (although not the recent CASOS one), and I headed the network society. I don't know anyone from Emory, and we are a small enough world, that I would know anyone who has been involved in social network analysis for enough time to have historical depth and breadth. Bellagio99 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Bellagio, I think you're being a bit *arbitrary* in what you say... you say that the NAACSOS folks are a "small world" and you know all the relevant ones... if that's the case, then you're saying you do *not* know Dr. Michael J. Prietula at Emory University -- the current President of NAACSOS?http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/naacsos/ who was also involved with several of the original workshops involving Kathleen Carley and Rich Burton ... if so, forgive me if I think you're putting your opinions on too high a pedistal vs. those of others here (Bellagio: oh, I know everything, just not the the president of the NAACSOS society http://www.goizueta.emory.edu/Faculty/MichaelPrietula/index.html but trust me when I say this is not relevant). I think you owe Refsworldlee and I an apology, since you just demonstrated the limits of your own knowledge; also, maybe you should think twice about deleting statements posted on Wikipedia with supporting evidence that seem to be contrary to your own, since you seem (like all of us) to have cognitive limits to what you know/don't know.68.223.56.104 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

sixdegrees.com

I'm not sure how important this is, but in the section entitled "Internet social networks" there is no mention of the site sixdegrees.com. Am I the only one who remembers it? It probably wasn't the first "social networking" site, but it was around in the early days. -- Allen U

  • I'm not sure what we want to do about it, since the SixDegrees.com site is no longer live. There's already a wikilink to the Six_degrees_of_separation page, although I have no problem if you wanted to add a mention (and wikilink) into the "Internet social networks" area of the article. --Alan Au 17:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

MySpace and News Corporation

I think it would be informative to mention the acquisition of Intermix Media, the parent company ofMySpace, by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation in September 2005 for $580 million. This would best be inserted after the mention of Google and Yahoo entering the social networking space, as another example of a major corporation (in this case, one of the world's largest "old media" empires) making a major financial investment in an online social networking business. One could argue this was a watershed event as the first successful "exit" of a venture capital investment in the online social networking business. I didn't add any text to the article myself because I work for Intermix and don't want to upset the NPOV. Antonej 03:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Please keep in mind that this article is primarily for information about social network theory, not about commercial social networking services. --Alan Au 21:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The article seemed to imply that Friendster was still the most popular social networking site, which is no longer true; MySpace is way out in front. I'm adding this fact because it's the info I came here to find out, not because I'm affiliated with Rupert Murdoch's evil empire. Factual info fromhttp://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2005/tc20050719_5427_tc119.htm64.122.41.167 17:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the sociologists have hijacked the phrase social-network from its common meaning. The term's common use is [social-network-services] and there should be at least an introductory paragraph to this affect in this article, or indeed this entire article should be orientated to the common use and the more obscure sociology use should be relegated. rprout520 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this comment by User Rprout520 is doing way up here, but I will respond in the same location. "Social network" has been used by social scientists since the early 1950s, so there has been serious use before Friendster, MySpace and Facebook. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
--
Although this is social network theory, "social network" is better known today because of the role it plays on the internet. Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter along with the many other websites started the foundation for Social Networking on the web. What and where would social networking be if people were unable to connect or interact over the internet?
Awp-wsu-af (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Global brain: Social Network Analysis

From Library Journal
Dunbar (psychology, University of Liverpool) has written a provocative book about the sociology of language use.
He begins with a discussion of primate behavior, physiology, and Darwinian evolution.

  • Amazon:Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language


RJBurkhart 12:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

This is the external links section as of today. I think we have passed the spam event horizon here. Per WP:EL, we should link to:

  • sources
  • leading authorities

Many of these links seem to be to social networks, not sites about social networking. Can we review them individually, please? Remembering that we should only link to sites which are about social networking and which are either sources or provide a level of detail excessive for a WP article. WP:NOT a link farm! Just zis Guy you know?16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Niche topics, e.g. GolfBuzz

I don't have a problem with any specific internet social networking service (e.g. GolfBuzz), but I'm concerned that once we start singling out particular services, we get into a problem of trying to decide who to include and exclude. At one point I blanket-removed all of the inline (external) links to prevent this problem. Partly, I'm not sure this is the correct article to be providing examples of commercial services, since this article is supposed to be the umbrella article about social network theory. Anyhow, I just wanted to express my thoughts on the matter. --Alan Au 18:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle but I do not see why singling out examples to illustrate points is a bad practice. Especially when it seems that social networking is tending towards niche sites that tailor specifically to peoples interstests and passions. In the article we single out the pioneers and social networking leaders such as Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc. I do not see there being a problem highlighting the new niche sites that leading the change (dogster, Joga, or sisiterwoman) to illustrate a point. They are the next evolution and probably just as note worthy. How many of the companies above have been able to attract a partner such as Apple computer as is the case with the new running focused social network that Nike and Apple are launching. Social networks are so mainstream that "big industry" is reacting and starting to participate. 69.180.21.43 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
So let's say I come along and want to add my niche website about pie-based social networks, and the next guys wants to add a link about cake-based social networks, and then someone else wants to add their site dealing with muffin-based networks, and then where do you draw the line? I was hoping that by excluding the external links, it would discourage people from adding specialized variants for commercial purposes. --Alan Au 21:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree... knowing where to draw the line is difficult. I do not think it is so much excluding rather than providing examples to illustrate a point. Adding a few examples does not mean that everyone should be included. I would stipulate that the examples are early niche pioneers or extremely note-worthy examples that come in the future for example: Dogster, sisterwoman, or Nike's entries (Joga and nike +). I definitely agree with your diligence on maintaining the integrity of the wiki. I believe that is what was done with the MySpace, Friendster and LinkedIn examples in the main article. Keep up the good work! 69.180.21.43 04:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Added mobile social networking section

Hi,

I'm still new to how Wikipedia works. I was kindly asked to sign my name whenever I make additions to Wiki pages. Here goes!

EmilyChew 22:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for contributing, but the AirG links were inappropriate and the section ended up sounding too much like a product advertisement, so I took it out. --Alan Au 06:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Milroy

The article is a little outdated, it doesn't even mention Milroy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by194.80.240.66 (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I have studied social networks for 40 years, and I have never heard of Milroy.Bellagio99 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Split the Article

I wonder if this article should be split into two or three pieces. It includes both "social network analysis," a serious academic discipline that has been around since the 1950s, and "social networking software" (MySpace; LinkedIn) designed to facilitate interactions. These are only weakly related, and the current article is a linkspam magnet for start-up software companies to publicize their product. Bellagio99 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that vigilant reverters can turn the tide of linkspam as long as they check back to their watched pages regularly. Some of us editors feel very protective towards our favourite articles. Can I also say that there appears to be some concern that splitting articles unneccessarily will counter the good work done (towards a lean and workable Wikipedia) by article/category mergers?Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 19:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are at least two different meanings of the term "social network." There are at least two communities that have little interaction that each use the term, but it does not mean the same thing. Each of the two communities is sufficiently large that neither can change the name, so what makes sense it to just realize that it is a homophone, where the same words have different meanings.

The older community is, I suspect, by far the smaller. It has, however, been using the term "social network" since at least the 50's, it has two dedicated journals, there have been annual conferences for 35 years, it is taught at a number of universities, there are dozens of books and hundreds of articles, some in top academic journals. No one can go back and a search and replace on something with so much history and infrastructure. The newer use of the term is so common that it cannot be changed either. They just have to learn to live with each other.

The original social networks were about describing social relations that were not just dyadic or binary. In the world we influence others and they influence us, usually on many levels at the same time. It is not just one on one. Colds, jokes and many other things travel through networks of people. Networks rapidly become complicated, and how do we know how they are organized, and how do we talk about what we see? Social network analysts are excited by the 6 degree thing because it allows to make guesses about what the human networks are like.

The newer community came from the merger of two ideas: collaborative software and networking. Collaborative software is such things as e-mail, this wiki, IM and so on. This has roots going back to Vaneever Bush's 1945 paper "The Way We May Think" where he proposed a collaborative system that inspired hyperlinks and the World Wide Web. It was followed up by Ted Nelson and Doug Engelbart and there is a long tradition of working towards better collaborative software in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Software that mediated human interaction came to be called "social software" (the term was coined by Eric Drexler, the same person who coined the term "nanotechnology").

Meanwhile, as women increasingly joined the marketplace in the 70's and on they realize that they were running into established networks that blocked their entry. They started forming groups to mentor and help each other. This activity came to be called "networking" and by the the 1980's it was an established business idea. In 1985, for instance, the organization Business Networking International was started, which still exists and is huge. In personal communication, the CEO (Ivan Mischner) said that the US Chamber of Commerce claims to have coined the term "networking." In any event, the term "networking" meant to actively expand your networks for business purposes.

In the late 90's some folks got the idea to start businesses that did "networking" using collaborative software. Most of them thought of themselves as "business" or "professional" networking, but Jonathan Abrams wanted to network for friends and he called what people did on his site, Friendster, "social networking." The term caught on and links a person makes through using MySpace, FaceBook, LinkedIn, FriendSter and so on came to be called "social networks." In the abstract these are "social networks" in the first sense, and there have been some papers that explore this, but in the main the older one is talking about networks in general and the newer about networks that revolve around specific Web sites. It was unlikely that Johathan was familiar with the older term.

The social networks of collaborative software are wonderful, exciting technologies. Occasionally someone will comment to me that the older kind of social networks are not as important and somehow overly academic. I would hope that people can realize this is not true at all.

In the 60's the idea of interdisciplinary research was popular (it is again). At Harvard they started a program called "social relations." This program took the common aspect of social psychology, economics, sociology: social relations and made that the foreground of study. Many people who are still quite well known were there, Stanely Milgram, Mark Granovetter, Harrison White, Barry Wellman, Ivan Chase, ... (heck even BF Skinner was there, but he was in that department) - some were teachers, some students. Some of the ideas they had then and subsequently about how our social world works are still revolutionary.

But, the wikipedia needs to realize that "social networks" has at least two meanings, and that "networking" in and of itself has an interesing history. So there seems to be at least 3 separate subjects. I think that the older social network thinking has a lot to offer the newer social networks.03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)dsteiny

Weak connection between the two, agreed. But they are nevertheless still relevant to each other. And I repeat my concerns about splitting a twice-splitted list which was split from X originally (for instance- that's probably not the true history of this subject, but I want to illustrate the process of repeated splitting over time). Meanwhile (he bangs on), others are worthily trying to merge content in an effort to keep Wikipedia referrable and readable. No votes here, I know, but I still disagree with splitting for no obvious and stark reason. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The main problem is that the current wikipedia entry is nonsense. It links "social networking" to "social networks" and it is just a coincidence they have similar names. I would be like linking "trucking" in "keep on trucking" to a vehicle. If the two are in the same entry they need to at the least, be linked properly. Social networking should be linked to collaborative software and names like Engelbart, Bush; projects like the social media work at U of Ill all need to be mentioned. None of these have any relations to the way the term "social network" has been being used for over 50 years. I have personally asked Doug Engelbart about this and he has vaugely heard of it. The term "social network" in the context of humans in general needs to be linked to names like Harrison White, Mark Granovetter, Barry Wellman and so on. There is a decent list of names, but it is a completely differnt list. The number of social networks analysts that have anything to do with social software is quite small. It is too different fields with the same name, the coorelation is much worse that "weak" it is confusing and wrong. 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)dsteiny
I strongly agree with dsteiny. I would be willing to work on the split in the spring. I know more about "social network" itself than about the social network software, so I would appreciate some help on that.

Bellagio99 18:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

In all honesty, I have used the entry on social networks as a sampling method to decide what I thought of wikipedia in general and it has given me a poor opinion of wikipdeida in general because of how confused and inaccurate this entry is. Rather than just complain I am able to take some time trying to help with this project. Some points:
Social Network Analysis (SNA) has THREE roots, not just graphs and graph theory. It also comes from sociology, as in the sociograms and theories of Morano, and psychology, specifically Fritz Heider and balance theory. The most cited works in the field have little or no mention of graphs at all. The graph theory portion is important because social network analysis does empirical research. Theories about the subject matter about which social network analysts are interested can be tested by real world observation. Seemingly simple questions like: "are two networks similar?" prove to be very difficult and it has taken many years of hypothesis testing to begin to answer this and related questions. However it is a methodology used by some analysts and not the essense of the field.
One of most highly regarded and inspirational people in this field is Harrison White, who is no lightweight in the mathematical properties of graphs. He uses them, however, to describe situations that he uses to build a much bigger picture of emergance of organizations and even people. It gets deep into the questions of essentialism and the Fundemental Attribution Error from social psychology. He is not about the mathematical properties of graphs, he is about how our social world makes us who we are.
We need to reorganize the whole thing into two threads, I don't care how it is done. It could be like a dictionary where there is definition 1 and definition 2 and so on. Another way might be to make an entry for social networking/social networks and one for social networks with a brief link at the top back to the other one for people that are interested in collaborative software. One for "networking" would be good as well. In all the literature about "social networks" I would guess that 1% is about "networking." It is usually not discussed as part of the field of social networks. It is important and valuable, but it has its own history and purpose.
Right now the wikipedia entries on this subject is either wrong or very weak (the Harrison White entry is very poor and I would like to update it, I have not done this before, but it would be a service to both Harrison and the community at large, he is WAY more interesting than the entry would lead us to believe).
Having entries in wikipedia that are misleading or wrong does not provide a service. It seems to me that to say "there is a weak link, but they are close enough" is just lack of information about the difference. There is virtually no link. They are both wonderful and important fields and I am deeply involved with both, but they are almost unrelated and the wikipedia entries are very confusing.
I do not want to put a bunch of work into this if it is not something that would be appreciated, so I am writing this here to get some feedback. Dsteiny 17:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion: social graph currently redirects to social network. So I added an entry for social graphs, though perhaps I should have started here in the talk pages for social network. 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. This controversy has been described onRead/Write web; some argue that 'social network' and 'social graph' are the same thing, whereas others, such as Robert Scoble, claim "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." 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stequoianie(talk • contribs) 20:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

hey i agree with the above. i came here looking for social graph info and didn't find it in the entry. i'd like to see a section on it or better an entry. thanks. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 76.71.4.20(talk) 03:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility hint

The text "An interactive model of this type can be found here based on rumor spreading from model on Cmol." uses "here" as a hyperlinked phrase. This is discouraged by accessibility guidelines; it is potentially confusing for screen-reader uses who will typically ask their software to read out all the links on a page as a list. A nicer hyperlink label might be "An interactive model of rumour spreading". Hypertext researchersn such as Nielsen, also argue that users exploit hyperlinked labels as eyecatchers.

Recursion see recursion 11:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Models

What are these models called Circle of Friends and Web of Contacts? They're mentioned in this article and some related articles, but I can't find any explanation of them. Web of Contacts doesn't exist, and Circle of Friends (social network) just redirects to Social Network. --Kimiko 17:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, add Circle of Trust to that list as well. -- Kimiko 17:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good points Kimiko. I am pretty central in the field, and I never heard of them either. Probably someone trying to place an ad for their consulting company or software or some other schtick. I'll remove them now.
Bellagio99 21:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Just because you are not familiar with Web technologies doesn't mean we should deny the world of their descriptions. The Web of Contacts was the model used by SixDegrees.com, and was an agent that built social networks. The Circle of Trust was a model that allowed people to indicate the users they trusted. The Circle of Friends, which is used on Friendster and MySpace allows people to manage their social network. The Old School Tie, used by Classmates.com is a social networking system that allows you to link up with old school friends MultimediaGuru 15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite right, it is a worrying time that we live in if kids think something is untrue just because they haven't heard of it before. I've added a citation and personally have heard of all these as a Web Veteran, and I'm sure there are more I haven't heard of. --WelshAspie 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just reverted (again) the re-inserted Circle of Friends stuff, asking him for documentation of notability. The inserter, User:Multimedia Guru, doesn't have a talk page, but I will start one in a second. In any event, much of this, if it sticks, belongs on the Social Networking page, and not here. YMMV. Bellagio99 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The [Social Networking]] page redirects to the Social network page, so unless you want to be constructive and move the Internet Social Networks section to the Social Networking page I suggest you observe the three revert rule and leave the page as it was before you edited it.--MultimediaGuru 16:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a kid again!

Dear WelshAspie, Thank you for calling me a "kid" as I am in my 60s but feel very youthful. And, although I have hung around with social networking software folks since 1976 (see EIES discussion in the article), I haven't heard of the circles of trust and friendship -- even though I have 200 articles, 3 books, and hundreds of conference participations in the area. So WA and Multimedia Guru, your expertise is different than mine. However, I did politely ask for citations, and all you inserted is a student paper from NYU (which doesn't document its assertions in the brief page 10 paragraph). Given your own assertions, I am surprised that you haven't done more documentation. I am not reverting again (btw, I only reverted once, so how does the 3RR come into play), but I would hope by this time tomorrow you would provide proper documentation. And please keep it civil. I will be happy to learn from your evidence.Bellagio99 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully now Bellagio you will refrain from trying to alter history:
--WelshAspie —Preceding unsigned comment added byWelshAspie (talk •contribs) 11:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate Location; Reliable Documentation

There are several problems with the parts you want in the Circle of Friends and Circle of Trust segments of the "Social Network" article.
1. The detail you want is inappropriate for this article. The main thrust of the article issocial network, and as the note says on this brief section, there is another more appropriate article, social network services where this level of detail might be more appropriate. Historically, people trying to place notice of their own social networking app. has been edited out, unless they are very world-famous such as Facebook or MySpace. The brief section in the social network article is admittedly a summary, as a read-through will show you that most of the article is about social networks-- and not social networking services. I also suggest you read through this entire Talk article, where you see that this issue has been hashed out and a rough consensus agrees that details about social networking software belong on the other page.
1.1. Bellagio, you do not own this page. The Internet social netowrks section has been part of this page a long time before you decided you did not want it here. The Social Networking page forwards to this page. --MultimediaGuru 14:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
2. I also believes that what you want to put in the social network article violates a longstanding editorial guideline (written by another contributor) that exists at the top of the editing page of the section you wish to add your material to. I copy this guideline verbatim just below:
IMPORTANT NOTE FOR EDITORS OF THIS SECTION (REPEATED). This section tells the history of Internet social networks, it is not for advertising your favorite particular project or service. If you do make changes to this section, please make it encyclopedic, non-commercial, and about the history and importance of Internet social networks in general, rather than a specific service. One rule of thumb (taken from the NPOV suggestions) is that you should not be writing about your own social networking application.
Now, this guideline does continue by providing an inadequate pointer as you noted. I am editing it now to point to the appropriate Social network service Wikipage.
3. I've also checked all of the references you have kindly provided on the Talk page (altho most are not on the Social Network page itself. Alas, none of them document that Circle of Friends or Circle of Trust led to MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, as such. They either show that Jonathan Bishop wrote some social networking software (as did friends of mine 20 years earlier), or other vague notices of the existence of the eight-largest social network service in England. There is no documentation of notabilityfor this software other than a hometown Welsh newspaper clipping and the aforementioned mention of the sale of the eighth-largest service in England.
3.1. I feel you are losing the plot Bellagio. The Circle of Friends is method of building a contacts list that MySpace, Facebook and many other sites use. The Circle of Trust, used by Dooyoo and others is another method of building social networks. --MultimediaGuru 14:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Many disputes over claims exist, and Wikipedia is not the place to debate them. For example, today's (Sept 1, 2007) NY Times has an article by the veteran reporter John Markoff, Who Founded Facebook? A New Claim Emerges which never mentions Mr Bishop's contributions. Indeed, you have provided no reliable documentation for these claims, despite my multiply repeated requests.
Let's move on. If not, I will refer the matter to mediation or arbitration, whichever you prefer. This will cost us both time (but less than an endless debate), and I daresay, the result will be to retain something like my edits. Instead of an endless debate, I suggest you might want to amplify (with documentation) the social network service article which badly needs help. Bellagio99 21:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC). Updated. Bellagio9901:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not best served by people trying to rearrange it according to their own worldview Bellagio. Many people who have edited this page before you agree that Internet social networks should be part of this article. Deal with it for all our sakes. --MultimediaGuru 14:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Do You Keep Reverting?

Dear WelshAspie, I see you have reverted me again, without giving any reasons or documentation I sent you a four-part note on the Talk page of Social Networks. I wish you would respond to that. PS: On a minor point, I believe that your change back to "forecasted" is ungrammatical.Bellagio99 14:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Bellagio99 14:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Forecast, et al.

Wikipedia uses American English and 'forecasted' is the correct spelling. If you can get something as simple as that wrong, I'm sure you're capable of making other mistakes as well! ;) Lighten up.--EddieMo 15:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear EddieMo, here is the sentence as it exists now in the article:
"The growth in community adoption is often forecasted (that is, estimating the number of users in the community) by use of the Bass diffusion model,...". This seems to mix present "is" and past "forecasted" tenses.
My sense of language is that this usage would be more correct:
The growth in community adoption IS often forecast...." which is all present tense. Or even the past perfect...
The growth in community adoption has often been forecast..."
What am I getting wrong?
PS. I've been told repeatedly that American, British, Canadian, Aussie, etc. spelling/usage are all ok in WP, but to try to be consistent. As this article is principally in American, you're right that it should stay that way. But my grammatical points (not spelling as you misconstrue) are in American.

Thanks for your interest.Bellagio99 16:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Hello. I added a "citations missing" tag to one section of this article because there were no inline notes. I do see Freeman (one or more Freemans) mentioned in the article, and the name Freeman in one or more of the References cited. So I guess I am left thinking the tag makes sense until/unless some idea of how the marked section is referenced (maybe it is Freeman et al. I am sorry I have no idea) is shown in the article. -Susanlesch 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. To my understanding, it is not an absolute requirement that readers be guided by some formatting tool to match up a particular reference to a particular claim in any article. And in this case, the print references are self-explanatory - they fully profess to give adequate insight into social network analysis, and I think that's patently obvious. I'm afraid the onus is on the reader, unlike with the more instantaneous nature of internet hyperlinks, to obtain a copy of the printed work, in order to confirm the validity of the reference. I have reverted your tagging once more (per your invitiation), as there are a wealth of sources quoted which allude to this facet of the social network article. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 01:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any references actually cited in that section and I have replaced the template you removed. Simply slapping a bunch of article, books, and other resources in a section labeled "References" doesn't quite cut it. --ElKevbo 01:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear El, Lee is right. There are tons of references. It's an entire field with multiple journals, major books, etc. When I edited it, I was working from an encyclopedia model where there are references at the end. I will slap a bunch of references on each section today, but frankly it's going to be redundant. Wasserman & Faust; Scott, et al. are major comprehensive reference works, that can be used repeatedly. It's not like claiming that Bx Sci is more/less notable than Stuyvesant;-) Bellagio9915:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with references being cited multiple times. The objective is to allow the reader to know why (i.e. what independent research proves or justifies that) particular claims or statements are "true." If there are particular documents that should be in a "Further reading" section, great - create one and move or add those documents. But it's simply not fair to the reader, particularly a reader with no familiarity with this subject, to simply throw a list of about 30 documents at him or her when he or she is wondering about a particular fact or assertion. I know it's all old hat and ingrained knowledge to you but please help the rest of us figure it all out. :) --ElKevbo 15:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I have 2 papers due today, and then up to the Far North for a week to do some research. So I may not get to it until next weekend. However, it would be even nicer if it weren't all me: I'll put out a request for help now on Socnet, the social network list serve (with an N > 1K), and we'll see who bytes. Hopefully, knowledgeable folks. Bellagio99 15:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. There's no deadline here. Like all volunteer activities, we do what we can when we can. I appreciate the quick response. --ElKevbo 15:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad hyperlinks, good theory?

Argh rant! I've changed or deleted about half of the internal links in the two links sections because they were linking to disambiguation pages, unrelated articles, and improperly capitalized versions of articles. I'm wondering if the irony of an article about networks that doesn't have its links right is indicative of a deeper problem with its authors being unclear on the concept.Wikidemo (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikidemo: No need to rant; just accept WikiPluralism. The folks that have done good edits on the social networks are mostly social network analysts who are better on the concepts than on the not-always-intuitive nature of WikiEdits. Thanks for your help, but remember that without substance, there wouldn't be form. YMMV. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Expand Network analytic software section

I'm planning to expand the 'Network analytic software' section briefly. I want to add a few lines describing the common features of network analysis programs, file formats, interoperability (or lack of). The changes will help the reader to understand what tasks are performed with these tools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmouly (talk • contribs) 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kmouly, This is a good idea, if you focus on network analytic software such as UCINet. From painful past experience, please do not deal with MyFace and its 1M clones. There is a "social network services" article (title?) that deals with that, but folks are always trying to stick their newest networking creation in here, and then get reverted. PS: Will you be at the social network conference this week. If so, send me a private email. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
However, it seems that matters concerning this have accelerated to such an extent that a questionable "table of resources", complete with external links scattered around it like confetti, has been inserted, with no attempt at establishing a consensus being made on this page, which is the correct place to carry out this procedure, not on each others' user talk pages (or by email).
As it stands per the timestamp below, the section containing the table has been tagged for my concerns, and I would ask you to look at the official policies from the following links to start with:Not a repository of links; Not a directory. This is non-exhaustive, and other policies may preclude the present format of the article section, which may be examined in more depth during this consensus-building. Please post below this message to indicate what you feel, and why you feel that the information introduced recently does not violate either the policies already mentioned, or those brought up in subsequent discussions here. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 16:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that the "table of resources" defies WP:NOT in what I see as clear ways and borderline ways.
  • "Wikipedia:Not a repository of links" says that all external links should be "content-relevant", and I believe that software-related links are not close enough to the subject of the article, which is about social networks and not social network analytical software. Remember, as I say, the article is about social network, not social network analysis. Start a new article about the analysis side of the subject, and try inserting the table there.
  • "Wikipedia:Not a repository of links" also says that lists (or tables, same thing) must not "dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia". In my mind, there is absolutely no question that the table as it stands occupies an inordinate amount of pagespace, breaks the reader's concentration as they scan the page downwards, and does therefore defeat Wikipedia's aims. I would go further and say that the table is a monstrosity and an eyesore.
  • With "Wikipedia:Not a repository of links" comes the ever-present possibility (or threat) ofspam, or product placement by interested editors, promotion of certain products indirectly, and the conflict of interest which usually results from editing and reverting these insertions. I would discourage the present format of the table for this reason alone.
  • "Wikipedia:Not a directory" should speak for itself. The introduction of the list is clearly designed to ease the problem of selection of software for a particular task in analytics, and may provide a comparison between the promoted software in the table. Whether the inclusion of different types and brands of software is essentially made from a completely neutral standpoint may open up another discussion about neutrality during editing of the article - what is the criteria for inclusion, and have any brands/types been excluded through a prejudiced view of the applications? However, I don't intend to get into that area of discussion just yet. The object of an article section within a subject article should be to provide a dissertation on what the aspect is, in relation to the main subject ("Analysis" as an intrinsic part of "social networks"), and not to focus on the more extreme ends of the information contained within the section. I believe that the question of what exact software is used for the task is not within encyclopedic parameters, and is not an issue for the article to tackle. I would also point out that each item of software mentioned should really, in the spirit of the enclyclopedia, be notable enough for it to have its own Wikipedia article which would survive the deletion process, and I would welcome your thoughts on this.
To make it crystal clear where my consensual opinion lies then, I am therefore saying that IDisagree with the inclusion of any social network analytical software list or table within the article for which this is the talk page. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The idea for the table was driven by questions that a lot of students raise in class every time that we teach social network analysis. It is really difficult to explain which software to use for what type of data without making a negative or positive judgment about the preferred software package. A free and democratically created overview in which the community can add the features, data types, advantages, disadvantages would help especially Newbies to understand what is accepted standard and what established network analysts are preferring to use based on their experiences.
Would it be acceptable to move the table to a new page and link from here? Ines —Precedingunsigned comment added by 65.96.180.231(talk) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ines/65.96.180.231: I think setting up a Social Network Analysis article would be a good idea, but I wouldn't do it as a table, as list sites in Wikipedia often become Articles for Deletion and the current table is ugly. Another idea is to set up a separate Wiki, probably through INSNA, and create an External Link to it in the Social Network article. That way, you wouldn't be as enmeshed in Wikipedia practices on what makes an acceptable article. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment (after the event, for clarification purposes only). But you would be open to accusations of circumventing policies, and pushing links to one's own sites, the first of which is frowned on, and the latter being forbidden and open to receiving an editing block in the worst case. Just thought I'd say. Ref (chew)(do) 00:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There are many articles in WP discussing special-purpose software. The most useful of these are structured in tables, and compare the packages (comparison of GIS software, comparison of statistical packages, comparison of computer algebra systems), but there are also articles that simply list the packages (econometric software, list of GIS software, list of numerical analysis software). Moving the current table to a new page should not be controversial, and it should be easy to defend it against deletion. I'd say go ahead and make the page.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Following up on Anthon's idea, I suggest you find a comparison or list table you like, and copy the parameters over to your new page. That should ease the task of making a presentable layout.Bellagio99 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. I think the idea of an acceptable standalone resource article for Social network analysis software is a great idea, as long as it too fits current guidelines and policies.
I think consensus is already showing a swing away from having the table in this particular article. Some of the reasons why it might not be acceptable have not been discussed, but I am quite confident that the main two policies which I have quoted are probably "anti" the list.
I would like to offer to copy the Social network page as it stands at this time to a test page in my user space, and I would then invite all those who want to develop the table to edit that userspace page to their hearts content, with my blessing. However, this does mean that, in return, I would wish to remove the table and its reference paragraphs from the mainspace article straight after, and to restore the Social network article to a previous state (taking care not to wipe off valid edits in between). Could interested parties indicate whether they agree or disagree with my offer? I will do nothing until agreement has been reached. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This is great feedback from everyone. I think we have come to an agreement that a listing or table of SNA tools is not a bad idea in general, but it should be placed on its own page, along with some explanation of what kind of tools we are caring about. I would like to offer to migrate the content of the current table onto its own page named "Social network analysis software", create a new table there, and make it looking nice. Once this is done I would welcome Refsworldlee to restore the Social network page to its previous (that is, table free) state and anyone else to desribe what kind of software we are caring about at this page. What do the interested parties think about this suggestion?JanaDiesner (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Jana, anyone can restore the page, even someone from your hi-tech school;-) It's easy. Just click on [Edit} for that section, Ctrl-A as usual will select the entire section, and Delete will wipe it out. Then Save Page (or Preview if you don't trust yourself), and ce ca!Bellagio99 (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved the table to Social network analysis software so that it can be edited there. I removed the "embedded list" tag: if User:Refsworldlee's objection is not limited to the table, then it should go back. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
In Favour of the action as carried out. The analytical software section retains just enough in the way of information and context, with reasonable external linking to support the information. I will leave the new article alone for now, as I realise it needs time to be developed; however, I reserve the right to make similar points about its suitability under existing policies at a future date. Good luck with it, to all who will develop it, and thanks for a very calm and "analytical" discussion!Ref (chew)(do) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
In favour of the action as carried out. I look forward to a more aesthetic table layout. And like Refs, I appreciate the civil discussion and movement forward. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

xkcd

Should something be said of xkcd 173 (movie seating)? It's a webcomic in which the narrator is trying to optimize the seating of people in a cinema (theater) so that those who are in a close relationship are seated close together. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 207.65.110.49 (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for deleting Electronic sociability section

1. Only tangential relationship to "social networks," the focus of the article. It is a poor fit.

2. If anything, this is really an article in its own right.

3. Which I note that it originally was, but is now under review for deletion.

4. Article uses a neologism which is not widely used, if at all, in the literature, and it doesn't contain any germane citations. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not the place to try out new ideas, however interesting.

Bellagio99 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

I have suggested that friendship network be merged with this page and its (small) content moved here. Please discuss here.--Jcbutler (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not much discussion yet... Should friendship network be combined with web community or virtual community instead? It just seems that there are a mess of little articles out there that could be fit together in some way. --Jcbutler (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello fellow Wikipedians! Two suggestions: (1) it might be good to archive your talk pages; you're now at 68k, and (2) you have in-line references which are great; might I suggest you use what you can from your "Further Reading" to also be inline references, and then toss the other Further Reading parts away to simply your article and to avoid folks trying to post their pet article here because they want to have it seen? Just a thought... Harvey the rabbit (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Why I reverted "criticism of social network" by Raul Lapiere.

Criticism is good, but:

1. The criticism itself is vague. It needs to be more specific, and more documented (remember WP:ORto be useful - "no original research".

2. The focus on the suggested addition is more on "social networking" -- a different WP article -- than on "social networks".

Cheers, Bellagio99 (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Weighted networks

I just added a page for weighted networks, any idea on how to link to this page, which I believe form part of social network analysis?

"Wasserman, Stanley, and Faust, Katherine." reference appears 3 times.

This reference "Wasserman, Stanley, and Faust, Katherine. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press." appears

  • twice as a <ref>
  • once in the bullet point list

I don't know how to uniform the 2 <ref>. And I don't know if I should remove the reference from the bullet list since it is already in the refs. --phauly (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the definition

Hello friends, I would like to propose the addition of the following text to the general definition of social network at the top of the page.

"A social network represents relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations, animals, computers or other information/knowledge processing entities.”

These words give clarity to the relationship aspect of the definition of social network. This additional part of the definition seems to be generally accepted by the community since it is included on many other websites and documents referencing the term social network. Any objections?

Cheers, Jbtrout (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not so fond of this definition. Social networks aren't just representations--they are the actual networks. Also, "flows" is an extremely vague term, and I am not sure it adds anything. The list of examples is also pretty random, and doesn't fit well with what social network analysis usually addresses. The current definition is clearer and more focused.
Also, I don't think websites are a good source here. They are low-quality sources in general, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. More to the point, the term "social network" arises from an academic literature spanning more than fifty years and a half-dozen academic disciplines. The existing definition fits well with the usage. DarwinPeacock (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Section on "Patents"

This section should be deleted. These patents relate to "social networking" which is a different topic than social networks. There is a page named "Social networking" on Wikipedia and this graph should appear there. "Links" to Social networking sites should also be moved there. Douglas R. White (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree this secdtion doesn't belong here at all. It detracts from the overall article. There is work on analysis of the graph of coinventors as a social network but that is not what this is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.12.95 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional patent query

The following was posted to the reliable sources noticeboard; I have copied it here as this is a much better venue. ElKevbo (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki Social Networks entry's Patent subsection mentions that "Only about 100 of these [Social Network] applications have issued as patents, however, largely due to the multi-year backlog in examination of business method patents." This statement unfairly associates legitimate published Social Network patents with the pejorative business-method-patents debate. I invented a Social Network technology during this time and succeeded in patenting it in the US (US Patent No. 7,124,362). I also succeeded in patenting it in Europe (European Patent No. 1 430 409). Europe is more strict than the US Patent Office in that they require that there be an Inventive Step. In the US, to successfully prosecute a patent, one must demonstrate that the technology be 1) Novel (the invention must be new), Useful (in my case solves the problem of group authoring without the need of servers or after-the-fact merging), and Non-obvious (my technology creates a new category, Cooperative Authoring, which is a subtopic of Collaborative Authoring). The European Patent Office rarely issues software patents, but it did so for my technology because I demonstrated that there was an Inventive Step. This is all public record.

Although my patented technology is not widely known, I submit that it is a notable exception to the public perception that all software advances are incremental. Especially in the Social Network topic area. I would like permission/acceptance to submit an entry for review on the Social Network technology and that it be linked, perhaps along with a few other examples of these 100 Social Networks patents the entry authors are referring to. The Social Networks -> Patents entry could then be extended with, "Examples of Social Networks patents are US Patent No. 7,124,362 (Hiveware), '<example 2 needed>' and<example 3 needed>. Refer to each patent for lists of references to prior art that the patent differentiates itself from."

Wikepedia must of course be wary of unnotable self promotion, but perpetuating bias like the "multi-year backlog in examination of business method patents" statement above is equally poor. A patent which always contains references to what an authorized institution determines is the relevant existing prior art, is quite notable in itself. I believe this ranks as knowledge as well. In the very least, if this forum doesn't accept my arguments that patents are knowledge, then I suggest that "in examination of business method patents" be deleted from the entry.

Robert Tischer Inventor of Hiveware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.98.207 (talk • contribs) 09:34, May 31, 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_network_analysis/Archive_1&oldid=647832629"