Talk:Familiar stranger

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Familiar stranger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081120135013/http://jamie.ideasasylum.com/research/publications/position_paper.html to http://jamie.ideasasylum.com/research/publications/position_paper.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update, March 31, 2016

You've done an amazing job here, Chelsea. I think that you're basically good to go with the research. All you have to do now for the final edit is to streamline everything and write it into the style of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Sentences like "Lets face it not only do people post photos of their lives on Instagram they also tweet their lives away on Twitter." are way too colloquial and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Other sentences, such as "Every individual has a routine for him or herself and within these daily routines contains all of their familiar strangers" are also unnecessary. The trick will be to delete the unnecessary, so your word count will go down but your quality will go up. Also, you need to make sure you put in your citations correctly and go through your whole article to make sure that certain ideas, names, and concepts are linked back up to their own Wikipedia pages. But you definitely earned an A for this rough draft. @Chelseastrubbe: Alfgarciamora (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed tech specific sections

I've removed some pretty long and largely unsourced sections on specific technologies as they relate to or manifest aspects of the subject. These sections tend to age the least well in an encyclopedia because in 5-10 years half of the examples may be out of business or no longer relevant (ask digital scholars about how popular Second Life was a decade ago). They're also areas where the tone and stance of the sources that were cited seemed to bleed through too much. Articles like this should be neutral, even if the relevant scholars and sources inveigh against something or create particularly colorful metaphors (e.g. Jabberwocky), the text of a Wikipedia article should not reflect that (or at least endorse it). Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chelseastrubbe: did you see this comment by Adam? Also, you should check out the work by Georg Simmel on the stranger and see if it applies to your article. Alfgarciamora (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranging Content

Hi All,

I've been doing some research on Familiar Strangers, and I came across this article. It's looking good, but I'd like to do some restructuring and moving around. I'm thinking of creating a History/Core Experiments section (with Simmel, Milgram, and Paulos sections), and then creating a Technological Applications section with the social network content. I'm not sure what to do with "Social identity theory" section as it's more of an explanation of the phenomena than about the Familiar Stranger in general. I may try to see if any other larger theories seek to explain it.

Want to let you know what I'm up to!

SciutoAlex (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

essay source

Hey yall, I've been looking for the essay "the familiar stranger: an aspect of urban anonymity", though i am unable to locate it. i did however find a video of an art exhibit who borrowed the name for an exhibit, and a physical copy of the essay was shown in the video, so I know it exists. Just wondering if a kind (not familiar) stranger would do a little looking, for the sake of the source. cheers, caiden. Caiden sr (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Stanley Milgram's 1977 collection The Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments. DS (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]