Talk:Etiquette in technology

This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later.

Digital citizenship was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 September 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Etiquette in technology. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Removed this sentence and fragment. Needs editing for meaning and connection to the topic. (For example, which traditional values refered to? And maybe give a link to "reflexive monitoring"?):

"We are able to see the traditional values disappearing however, reflexive monitoring is occurring (Williams 2005:320). Through this, parents are becoming friendlier like with their children... "

Ellisun (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving Talk:Netiquette

See Talk:Netiquette for discussion of that article, merged here in late 2012. For reference's sake: Last version of Netiquette prior to the merge. MrZaius^talk 19:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Whole sections of this article seem to have been plagiarized from their sources, written as if Wikipedia were a howto guide, etc. That, and the long outstanding 2010-2012 merge request here seemed to indicate that this piece should be merged into others, not the other way around.

I wonder if there'd be opposition to reverting the merge and AfDing or redirecting this back. In particular, see "cell phone etiquette" - Is there more? I'm not wholly unbiased, but I believe Netiquette was written in a far superior manner, with its more encyclopedic tone and more substantial citations. Would it provide a better basis for a rewrite retaining this name, or would it be more appropriate to simply reverse the merge? MrZaius^talk 19:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this happened, but I must have inadvertently saved an old (possibly original or nearly original) edit of this page over the current before I began questioning the validity of the merge. Undid my mistakes, and I withdraw the comment above. MrZaius^talk 22:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newbies

Don't bite the newbies, which currently redirects to project space, has been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 7#Don't bite the newbies. A google search for the phrase turns up many uses outside Wikipedia [1] so I'm wondering whether to add a sentence or two to the Netiquette section of this article and point the redirect to it. I'm not sure off the top of my head what the wording should be at the moment (otherwise I'd have boldly added it).

Does anyone have any opinions or suggestions on this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. I looked at those results, and they stop at page 7 (the rest are said to be duplicates). They appear to all be forum posts, or Wikipedia spawned junk like http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Don't_bite_the_newbies . However there are two google book hits. This one justifies a wiktionary entry. This one doesnt have proper preview available, so I cant speculate whether it is useful as a source for Wikipedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that many uses of the exact phrase stem from Wikipedia (and that search wont find things like "don't bite the newcommers" or "be extra nice to new folk"), maybe even the concept, but if they have been adopted by other communities then that makes it a mention-worthy part of online culture separate from Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have created wikt:don't bite the newbie so we can collate instances of it being used there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check this paper about biting newcomers. Perhaps the retarget would be better off at Academic studies about Wikipedia instead? --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cell phone etiquette within social relationships

The paragraph on cell-phone etiquette in social relationship cites one source, is biased, and not written correctly for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.198.137 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Do you have any other sources in mind? Any suggestions for how that section could be improved? Do feel free to contribute – Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit! – Wdchk (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading this article.

For some reason, I greatly enjoyed this article. Far more so than most other Wikipedia article! I feel like something about the way it was written was just perfect, like I stayed interested throughout the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGamerguy110 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2] But seriously, I thought the talk page was for suggesting improvements to the article, not just a comment space. Having said that, I was surprised to see that this article seems entirely interested in talking about when/where it's 'appropriate' to use phones, rather than spending any time talking about the etiquette of a phone call in and of itself. For example, the kind of behavior expected of a secretary in taking calls for the boss. How to answer, politeness, effective communication, how to end the call, etc. 24.6.187.181 (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snapchat information at the very end

Why is an encyclopedia asking me questions and not providing sources for pretty much the entire last paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.237.212 (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Etiquette in technology. 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/20070822213221/http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html to http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be marked as strangely written

Very opinionated with considerable lack of sources. I think this article needs cleanup pronto. Evedawn99 (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, very archaic too. I tried to clean it up a bit but I think this article needs new material too. TBM41 (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe good to add a banner for this...? Shadowjonathan (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strange References

Heya, just swinging by to notice that some paragraphs seem to have strange references inside of them, such as these;

"Most schools allow students to have cell phones for safety purposes"—a reaction to the Columbine High School massacre (Lipscomb 2007: 50).
[...]
Teenagers use their cell phones as a way to negotiate spatial boundaries with their parents (Williams 2005:316). This includes extending curfews in the public space and allowing more freedom for the teenagers when they are outside of the home (Williams 2005:318).
[...]
Children are often so closely affiliated with their technological gadgets, and they tend to interact with their friends constantly and this has a negative impact on their relationship with their parents (Williams 2005:326).
[...]
We are able to see the traditional values disappearing; however, reflexive monitoring is occurring (Williams 2005:320).

Note that this is independent of the strange wording of this segment, which, I cant comment on, only refer to this weird way of phrasing and referencing. At a glance, it looks like its been taken from another source verbatim, without proper formatting, rephrasing, or source referral in wikipedia's format.

Shadowjonathan (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowjonathan most of the article is just opinions just like many other articles relating to technology here 🫤 24.246.136.200 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"📵" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 📵 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 4 § 📵 until a consensus is reached. Okmrman (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

opinion moment

gets more and more subjective the further you read lol 24.246.136.200 (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]