Talk:Social media and suicide/Archives/2021

Can Kaya - Social media and suicide review

-The introduction paragraph of the article is clear and mentions the main point of the article and the relationship between social media and suicide. The 3rd sentence of the introduction paragraph makes a "increasing evidence" statement but lacks the source of this statement. It would be great to cite the source of this increasing evidence of the effects of social media on suicide.

-The second paragraph is well organized but a simple definition and relevance of the "death of Phoebe Prince" could be mentioned as well as the definition of cyber bullying.

-The third paragraph provides very useful information about how social media effects different kids and helps the article develop.

-Social Media Risks: the relationship between the age groups using social media and corresponding suicide is unclear. Might help to provide statistical evidence that social media using age groups have higher suicide rates compared to the 20% of Facebook users who are over 45.

Impacts of pro-suicidal sites, message boards, chat rooms and forums: -This section of the article is well developed with a good amount of sources cited. It also uses a wide perspective of various social media platforms which helps us to understand social media as an whole.

The rest of the article provides useful statistics to help understand the relationship between social media usage and suicide. However, I think that this topic should be researched from both ends. Does social media always lead to more suicide or are there instances where people find hope and psychological therapy? I think that there should be a points from both sides and examples of people who have found social media helpful to find the meaning of their life. By doing so would allow the article to further develop into a better encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanKaya1 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the article, I added a couple of sentences that I thought would help the audience, and give more information. I first added information talking about Océane Ebem and her death. Her name seemed like it kind of just popped up in the article without a lot of information given to the audience. Henceforth why I added "In Océane Ebem's suicide, she live-streamed it on a social networking site called Periscope. In this stream, she talked about how she had been physically and sexually abused by her boyfriend and gave his name and means to contact him. In response to her confession, the viewers watching the live stream could care less about what she had to say and how to help. Instead, they bullied her in the comments section and said incredibly mean and hurtful things. In response, she live-streamed her suicide and thousands of people saw it." I also edited in the section that talked about charges of kids who cyberbullied people over social media that led to their suicide. I talked about the death of Pheobe Prince because she had been mentioned at the beginning of the article, but I felt like she wasn't tied into the article very well. Therefore, I talked about what happened to the teens in court. "In the death of Phoebe Prince, prosecutors did not take her death lightly and initially charged each of the six teens responsible for her death with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, criminal harassment, disturbing a school assembly and a civil rights violation with a bodily injury resulting. The felony charge civil rights violation with bodily injury alone carries a 10-year maximum sentence. Some of the other accused teens also faced the violation of civil rights with bodily injury charges, as well as statutory rape and stalking. The teens later got a plea deal that stated if they pleaded guilty in a misdemeanor charge of criminal harassment the more serious charges would be dropped." The last edit I made was in suicide pacts. I just added another example of a suicide pact, but this time in the United States. Suicide pacts are also in the United States. In April 2018, Macon Middle School, a middle school in North Carolina, became aware of a group on social media called "Edgy" or "Edgy Fan Page 101" in which this group came up with a suicide pact and had suicide ideations. The middle school contacted the parents and informed them to look into their children's social media pages and talk with them about the dangers of a group like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor.west.043 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The specific phrase that I want to change is within the first paragraph where is says “Additionally, there is increasing evidence that the Internet and social media can influence suicicide-related behavior.” While saying that there is “increasing evidence” is great, there is no actual evidence or data given in this sentence or paragraph that actually backs this up. Therefore, my addition would be to add data after this statement is made. I would like to add the quote that says, “A study published in 2015 found that the threshold for where kids start to have more mental health problems is the 2-hour mark,” Zelazny said during the presentation. “Teens who reported using social media sites more than 2 hours a day were much more likely to report poor mental health outcomes like distress and suicidal ideation. A study done the following year found that problematic internet use resulted in poor mental health outcomes longitudinally, and these were mediated by poor sleep.” (Healio.com). I think this is a great statistic/data with a great quote from a credible source that backs up the previously said statement without making or completely changing this intro paragraph. I also think that this stat provides great insight into what will likely later be talked about without going too much in depth. Having some type of data or quote within the intro provides credibility as it is clear that the author of this wiki article has done research on this topic and this is not just going to be an article about their opinion.

"Social media use may play important role in youth suicide, expert says". www.healio.com. Retrieved 2021-09-23.153.33.13.96 (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Ryleighbecker (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

IS2430 SOCIAL COMPUTING AT UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

MiracleKis (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Hi! Since the content of this topic is so rare, i think we have a lot of works to do. I would like to find some cases related with this topic first

Vagarii (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)HI! It's turned out that I am the 2ed one to come, right , let us do some research at first.

Yuz82 (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Here are what I think about references:

1. The format of references are not consistent, so I think we should adjust them to uniform format, like "author (date). title with clickable link, source".

2. Some of references are not complete. For example, No.8 doesn't offer title and occurs display error; No.9 only includes link; the link to No.13 is not clickable: "page not found".

3. No.15 in the article is in the wrong position, we should correct it.

4. Some of clickable contents with red color in the article, like "Paul Zolezzi", lead to pages that are not created yet. Should we do something to them, like withdraw the link?

I agree with you in maintaining the uniformity of the reference links and also for links in the article with red color, we can either remove the link or search for the correct link and tag it Grk24ct (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yuz82 (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Here are what I think about content:
1. For the first paragraph, it mentions three part: relationship, some cases and suicide about kids and teens. So I think we could separate these three parts so that it looks neat and in order.

• We could use some research data mentioned in the first a few paragraphs(in "Social media and suicide risk" section) in the article to support relationship; and mention three attitudes to suicide here: prosuicide, neutral and antisuicide to foreshadowing the following article.
  
• We could also talk about why social media influence prosuicide behavior: I think the reasons are "The Internet has also provided a way for people to obtain how-to descriptions of suicide as well as lethal means to kill themselves." and "the media contagion effect"(the first sentences in 7th and 8th paragraph in the first section).
  
• Cases comes after as a independent paragraph;
  
• We could also extract "kids" part to the following content part since it's a important topic.
  
  

I think instead of dividing the lead paragraph in to three sub topics, we can fine tune the lead paragraph to give clear and concise meaning and later in the body of the article, we can discuss in detail each subtopic with the headings as I mentioned in my comment below. Grk24ct (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

2. For "Suicide pact", we could add the definition and refer its two categories: "traditional suicide pact" and "cybersuicide pact", and then say the second one occurs "Because the Internet eliminates geographic barriers to communication between people"(in the last paragraph in the "Social media and suicide risk" section). After that, "The first documented use of the Internet to form a suicide pact" and other details can be talked about.
3. In "Webcast suicide" section, we could cite examples in "Video-sharing sites..." paragraph.

4. For both "interventions" and "discussion and support groups", they all talk about the prevention to suicide, so we could apply the second section in the article. So I think we can use two categories: websites, like "National Suicide Prevention Lifeline’s lifeline-gallery.org Web site" and facebook pages, such as "Suicide Prevention fb page" with their followers.

Yuz82 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Hey guys, what do you think about my opinions ? Let's discuss them.

MiracleKis (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)I am agree on separating the first paragraph into more sections, especially separating kids' suicide things into an individual part. Then the webcast part is lack of details and reference, we should complement it.

Yuz82 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Sure. Do you find some related resources about "webcast" part? Also, is it necessary to merge "Interventions" and "Discussion..." part? I think they all talk about the prevention of suicide, but I'm not sure if merging method works better.

Vagarii (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)hi,all,sorry to be late for the discussion and look at what you guys done, it is so good and thanks for sharing !! Yuz82,I read about what you think about the reference, it is very clear in detail, and I search the wikipedia about how to begin with a good reference and I think it is very useful for improving the existing reference errors you mentioned before! And we can use it to improve the reference and citation later together! There is the link:Help:Referencing_for_beginners,Citing_sources

Yuz82 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)It's great that we have the formal format of references. Let's discuss the improvement to content.

Vagarii (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)okay,let us talk about the content. First, the lead section, as The six good article criteria, the lead section should be well written, which includes the clear and concise and also complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections. As for Yuz82 have make the opinions about the clearness about the lead section content, I want to make some complement about the style guidelines for lead section and discuss the idea which you guys mentioned.

• The first few sentence maybe not clear and concise, as the guidelines says The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.
• How about give a concise and clear definition about the social media suicide in the fist paragraph at the lead section and put the cases in the second paragraph or third paragraph?
• Maybe we should consider the interest when people read about this topic and improve the paragraph more interesting and attracting, but do nor make the lead "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows.
• Do we need to add some images to the lead section to make the topic clearer?
• Maybe we also should concentrate on the correct format, when using the citation and reference

What do you think?

Hi, I am also part of the Social computing class and would be working with you guys in improving this article. Grk24ct (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have come up with the following suggestions both for the content improvement and our strategies to improve article:
Content improvement:

Neutrality-I feel that the current version of the article is biased as it talks more about positive correlation of social media and suicide and talking very less about the prevention or steps being taken to reduce the impact of social media on suicide. We will focus to maintain the neutrality by giving equal importance to topics supporting and opposing the view

We will focus to fine tune the lead paragraph which gives concise and clear context.

We will not limit our scope just to cyber-bullying(as this article speaks more about teenagers) and explore on cyber harassment also to know how social media influences the adults ideation on suicide

Coverage-We will focus on improving the coverage of the article by discussing the following two aspects in detail in body section of the article:

1)Social media risks and 2)Suicide prevention

These are further divided in to the following subtopics and discussed in detail

Social media risks:

Impact of pro-suicidal sites, message boards, chat rooms and forums.

Correlation between suicide rates and Internet/social media usage.

Cyber-bullying vs Cyber harassment.

Suicide pacts (Traditional pacts and cybersuicide pact)

Suicide notes, webcast and media.

Suicide prevention:

Here we can discuss in detail about different measures being taken by different organisations and social media initiatives to prevent the suicides.

Research- Here we will identify different areas that need research attention to help prevent the suicides.

Grk24ct (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Article improvement strategy:

Let us not limit the talk page to our selves with our current naming convention of the section highlighting the course name or university name. We can create a individual talk sections corresponding to each area of improvement that we focus on.

We can also follow the indentation while replying to comments of other users which improves the talk page readability and ease of access.
Grk24ct (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

MiracleKis (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)I think the structure of this article is almost well discussed. Here are 2 links about some real cases of webcast suicide:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1088173/Teenager-commits-suicide-live-online-1-500-people-watch-video-stream.html http:// www.liveleak.com/browse?q=webcam%20suicide MiracleKis (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)as Vagarii said, we should make this article interesting to attract people. We can highlight some key words, and put some images (some screen shots of suicide videos). BTW, those pages i put above probably have some videos. Is it allowed to put these videos? Because i think these videos are kind of negative.

I think images need not be necessary related to suicide showing some one hanging or similar way. We will think adding images which explains the metrics or some survey results related to suicide which may be informative as well as easily understandable. Grk24ct (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yuz82 (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC) I agree with the structure of this article Grk24ct mentioned above. As for images, I think we can use some positive images, like the logo of suicide prevention organizations, if there are some.
Yuz82 (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC) I have summarized three major changes based on my opinion: structure, content and format. You can make adjustment on it.
Vagarii (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)I have read what Grk24ct comments about the content, but have some question about the prevent the suicide part, do we really need to contain that much into the article, cause the goal we want to achieve is make the article be a good one not an excellent one. Also it will cost the time we make improvement on other problems. And for the video, it is a wikipedia style for add some video to the lead section, I mean most people get though the wikipedia to get the information fast and clear, could the video be too entertaining and costs time to watch it. Picture may be a good choice. what you guys think?
Vagarii (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)as Yuz82 concludes the most three changes we should make, I think it is not very clear with the 2ed and 3rd changes.
Can we make more specific, like Content:

    * Add suicide prevention part.
    * Add video or picture.
    * Make the lead section more definitional and attracting.

MiracleKis (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Im agree with Vagarii. we just need to make this article look neat and readable.

Vagarii (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)hey guys, let's move tho the 3 steps of wiki assignment, I think we should talk about which part each of us lead for improving the article. As professor said in the email, I will edit the reference part just as I mentioned in the early discussion.

Is there a way to order it to make it more readable? Perhaps more statistics? Mollymoralez (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

DpadM8 (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC) The first paragraph of social media and suicide, should add more details or examples of cyberbullying, emotional distress, and ultimately suicide. When given more details about those causes, we could understand more about the cause of social media and suicide. For example, this could explain the perspectives of how people could become cyberbullies and how it triggers people to have emotional distress that would lead to suicide. There are more ways in how people are led to suicide and bullying besides social media. Especially in the year 2021, we could expect that more people around the world are struggling from cyberbullying and suicide.