Talk:Social network (sociolinguistics)

Thoughts on the initial version

• In the History part it is described in a quite detailed way what strong ties and weak ties are, but already in the next paragraph it is described again. Maybe you can remove it from the History part or at least shorten it. Sahara2005 (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I found this to be very detailed and thought that you handled the explanation of a fairly complex theory well. The intro blurb at the top provides a concise definition for someone with casual interest, but the detail below also outlines the nuances of the theory and supporting evidence. One thing to consider with respect to structure- it seems as though your "overview" section would flow more naturally into the "social network theory" section [the "history" section seems like it's breaking the natural transition from one thing to the next]. The strong tie/weak tie distinction is also discussed in both the history and social network theory sections. You might be able to incorporate the history into either the section preceding or following it, and make the flow smoother and less redundant? Otherwise the structure and content are very good. Tinydancer.egreen (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• I was impressed by how comprehensive this page was. I appreciated the breadth of the studies section, but was not overwhelmed or bogged down by the methodology. That said, I think the page is a little light on the connection between social networks and language change. It describes the structure of a network well, and certainly references findings that support social network theory, but I think the page would benefit from an explicit section on social network theory itself (especially since there isn't a page for social network theory itself...) and the way the theory handles the mechanisms of language change.Frannieu12 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• I thought this page was easy to follow and had thorough explanations for each of the components. A paragraph or two about language change in relation to social networks would be useful in the overview to help introduce the idea. Also, Figure 5a from the Fagyal reading would be a nice addition to the Computational Modeling and Simulation section to help visualize the study. All in all, very nice page! Elizalinguistics (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very thorough and well-cited page. I really admire the level of detail in this page. This may just be a personal opinion but when it comes to Wikipedia pages, I prefer shorter sentences that each contain a little piece of information so I don’t have to constantly reread one sentence to try to mine all the information out. Example: “In an effort to depart from variationist sociolinguistics[11], a discipline founded by William Labov which explores the relation between groups of people and their language use by effectively describing an individual’s language use in terms of social attributes of the individual, sociolinguists have more recently begun to focus their studies on “weak links”: networks that are not closely connected by shared socioeconomic status, or individuals who are not closely tied to any group, such as people who move frequently or live in isolated areas.” In sentences like this, there is a lot of information densely packed together and just kind of slows the reader down. Obviously, feel free to ignore this if you guys have a different view of how Wikipedia pages should be. Overview section is nice and clear. I appreciate all the examples and how you explicitly show how each example demonstrates network and language change. Yaylinguistics (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• [This page introduces the concept and importance of social networks well. However, the structure of the page itself is confusing.
  • "Social Network Theory" as a section heading seems redundant and should be more specific. The entire page is introducing social network theory.
  • "Social Network: The Structure" is a concise heading, but the section itself is a mash of structural definitions that could be better organized as bullet points.
  • "Social Network Analysis" could use subheadings for each of its concepts, because they're so central.
  • Under "Computational Modeling and Simulation", it is definitely important to reference the Leaders and Loners study -- but it makes more sense to include the study under the "Linguistic Studies" section.

The page is a great collection of information -- so many sources pointing to established research -- but the page hierarchy needs a tune-up.] Warrenmcbieber (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciated the abundance of information covered in this page, but there seems to be just a bit too much material to absorb at one time. The multi-layed structure could be slightly intimidating and confusing. Some materials(strong ties vs. weak ties) are repetitive. So I would suggest the group combine some of the sub-categories into one succinct description of the Network Theory. Nevertheless, the group did a great job explaining the theory through a combination of general descriptions and detailed examples. I especially like the detail where the Labov Harlem study flows naturally into the Milroy study. One last suggestion, the computational method section doesn't seem extremely relevant, or it could show more statistical evidence from those studies. --Danleiseveny (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• This a very informative and detailed page, very impressive. Because it has so much information though, it is a little overwhelming. For a regular Wikipedia user, I'm not sure if they would find what they need here, but I think that can be fixed if you organize the page differently... Jtnh (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very detailed and thorough page! Like others have already stated though, there is simply so much information that it hard to take in all of it at once. The examples are very helpful at explaining the information. Maybe try and condense the page with only what is most important and pertains the most to the topic of social networks and leave other information for other pages.Sydneyelder (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is a very informative page, and it makes use of a lot of great sources. However, as others have said, the page length is a bit daunting and wordy. Perhaps you could cut out a couple of the sections on the various social network studies in the second half of "Linguistic Studies." It seems unnecessary to include so many of them. EmmaKylie (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Good job on the level of detail and cited sources! The sections "Social Network Theory", "Social Network: The Structure", "Social Network Analysis" could have their names simplified by removing the "Social Network" part. Also, the number of examples under "Linguistic Studies" is more than necessary and should probably be condensed and/or moved to other pages. I liked that you had a few images, though there is definitely room for more if you have the time, especially to illustrate the many concepts you bring up. Drbazzi (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Great page you guys-- it's very detailed and easy to follow. I would perhaps add a picture of a social network at the top of the page. It's great that you guys have pictures to compliment the topics you brought up. In the history section, there's something weird going on with the formatting of the strong tie theory and the weak tie theory-- it is italicized sometimes and then not other times. I also felt like this section was a bit hard to follow. It becomes more clear in the Social Network Theory section later though. In the linguistic studies section, I would hyperlink the names of the people doing studies. There is a lot of information here so it was a little hard to synthesize everything as I was reading. This section was very thorough and it definitely supplemented my knowledge related to the social network theory! MildlyImpressed (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to start off by saying how impressed I am with the amount of content you have put on this page. Your hard work is reflected in this article's density. Here are a few things I noticed:

• • The Overview section repeats information that could be placed in the introduction, specifically the sentences "Rather than attributing linguistic variation and change directly to macro-level social classes, social network theory opts for a more fine grained approach. Group members within a network interact with varying frequency, and these interactions systematically lead to language variation and subsequent language change" and the last paragraph of the Overview section.

• • I would also appreciate an image of a Social Network graph, specifically the image from one of our readings that shows how complex Social Networks really are. It could go somewhere near the beginning of the page with a brief explanation of what we are looking at either as a caption or within the introduction or overview section, depending on where you would like to place the graphic.

• • Scattered throughout the page are complex sentences that could be re-worded for clarity. As an example, perhaps the sentence "These people were “lames”, positioned on the end of the social network, and were people who weren’t held in high regard by the leaders of the speech network." could be re-written as something like "Identified as "lames" in the study, these people were positioned on the end of the social network, as they were not held in high regard by the "leaders" in the network" or something to that effect.

• • So as to not end by being nit-picky, I must say that the layout of the Belfast Study is quite clear. I like that you list the variables for the study. This made it much easier for me to glean what the study means for Sociolinguists and even peaked my interest in the specific topic. GvargasLing150 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Great job on the page! It's very well written and easy to understand. The page layout is very effective. I do not have any criticism because I think you all did a wonderful job with this page and topic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarisaRussell (talk • contribs) 19:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is a very extensive page.
  • “History”: I felt this was straightforward and easy to read. I would place this section before the “Overview” section to create fluidity across sections.
  • “Social Network Theory”: I think this can be placed within the “Overview” section (which will also avoid repetition with the brief introductory sentences for the page).
  • “Social Network: The Structure”: this section is very succinct and useful for knowing how to read the social network diagrams.
  • “Social Network Analysis”: perhaps it would be useful to extend further on the “network strength scale” in Milroy (e.g. how it is used to assess “network strength”).
  • “Computational Modeling and Simulation”: very comprehensive section; easy to read. I was wondering if there were other computer simulation and modeling representations that you came across or whether they are, in general, similar to the diffusion curves display.
  • “Linguistic Studies”: could perhaps use more detail in some case studies, particularly the last two case studies: “The Internet Chat Rooms” and “Facebook” studies. Also, “The Internet Chat Rooms” study left out what the variables were, as well as specific “sub-communities” unless the authors did not include those details. The last sentence, specifically, of “The Internet Chat Rooms” case was also confusing to read.

Thank you for taking the time to provide substantial information. User: Cueva:anana

• Great page. I thought that you organized it quite well. I particularly enjoyed reading about the different linguistic studies. My suggestion would be to read through your page thoroughly and check for long, convoluted sentences. I agree with what was stated above: it’s easiest to read shorter, simpler sentences. They are more consistent with the Wikipedia style. I think this is especially important in the blurb at the beginning. Also, check for small grammatical errors. For example, there should be no comma before “because” in the second sentence of the Overview section. AnnaCG93 (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Good job on this page! I like the structure of the page, especially the linguistics studies part. The examples are in good length, too. One suggestion: for the strong ties and weak ties part, I think it would be better to name them again in the first intro paragraph under Social Network Theory even though you have a good chunk of information in the History section. I was thinking that, if someone clicks the button in the Content table to go straight to Social Network Theories (without reading the History section), they might need some more introduction there. Some re-organization around History and Social Network Theories sections would be nice. Other than that, I think things are pretty well-structured! Well done!--Crfrances (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I was very impressed by how detailed the layout of this page is! Each of the studies is wrapped up very succinctly and clearly, the accompanying graphs/images are very helpful! I especially like the way that in the "Computational Modeling and Simlation" section, you have the study section indented so that the conclusion below it stands out. I also like the way that key words in your "Social Network Analysis" section are italicized. Overall, very well sourced, very well organized. Catclawnym (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very well done. I appreciate the thorough explanations and logic that is followed in the writing (e.g. "Language is inherently social because it cannot exist without a user. Therefore language networks must also be considered as social networks"). I also appreciate the distinction between "language variation" and "language change" that you make in the introductory paragraph, in the last sentence. The only major suggestion that I would make, and I believe it has been stated in previous comments, would be to work on the style a bit to make it easier to read and understand for a "lay" person (non-linguist, non-academic, etc.). Well written, though, and the support offered by all of the studies is great. Keep up the good work! Jacksoncato (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is evident that you all devoted a great deal of time to your research and the production of your wikipedia page. I did notice that the first few sections (History and Social Network Theory) contained similar material, so perhaps you can find a way to integrate/condense them to avoid repetition? I also feel it might be relevant to put the Structure and Analysis sections earlier in the article so that readers are better able to understand the larger theories and concepts drawn out of this field of research. (As a visual learner, I personally enjoy being able to have access to diagrams/figures early on.) Danielle.a.bells (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC

What I like about this page: It is informative with great level of details. It could be usefull for any one who wants to learn about the theory in a deeper sense. What could be improved: I think this page can be a little overwhelming for the average wiki users, but with some changes in the writing and organizing the page more precise that problem could be solved as well.

• A really well-done page. It might just be that the topics preceding this page have been smaller in scope, but relative to the other projects before this (my group's page included), this page reads as the most fleshed out and most heavily researched. The citations are extensive, and the overall organization of the page is natural. I kept imagining how happy a sociolinguistics student whose thesis/dissertation involves network theory would be to come across this page! As mentioned in class, the Overview section is a little out of place. (No need for it for the parts that are explained later. As for the ideas that are unique to the section that you really want to keep, consider distributing them throughout the page.) Well done once again! Jeffbutters (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of thoughts on initial version

First of all, y'all should be congratulated on producing a very well-researched and informative page. I think the many 'initial thoughts' in the previous section are cogent, and that you should take them seriously when you are working on revising the page. Let me summarize some of the major themes in the comments, and add some points of my own:

• The page retains traces of an essayistic style that would be appropriate for a term paper, but not really for a Wikipedia page, which is meant to be more direct and encyclopedic in nature. I think this is what several of the people who mention the page being 'wordy' are picking up on. The entire first paragraph of the overview section, the first sentence of the History section illustrates this phenomenon, as do many others (see Yaylinguistics' comments). This is probably the single biggest expositional weakness of the current page, and the page would be much improved by adopting a more concise and terse encyclopedic style
• Several of the above commenters raised good organizational points, including Tinydancer.egreen's comments about the position of the History section, Warren McBeiber's and GVargasLing150's comments about organization of specific section, and several commenters observations the overall feel ('overwhelming') of the page. I think the overarching issue is that as the page is currently organized, it is not clear what the major important points are, and what are ancillary or illustrative ones, making it difficult to extract key information from a waterfall of prose. I'd recommend thinking careful about what you think the key points are, and thinking about the organization in that light, with an eye towards pruning your prose considerably.
  • The Social Network Theory section is perhaps the most in need of reorganization: relatively general initial comments (which could be considerably abbreviated) are followed by summaries of Strong and Weak tie theories, even before more basic notions like multiplexity and network density are introduced. The discussion of first, second, and third order zones also represents a degree of detail that seems out of place before a more general discussion of notions like multiplexity and network density, and the relevance or significance of the zones notion is never made clear (although it could with, for example, reference to the Harlem study).
• Perhaps the most important results from Network Theory, namely that dense networks are resistant to change, and that change is mediated by weak links, are first encountered buried in the History section. I think this should be much more prominent.
• Also relegated to a single sentence in the Social Network Analysis section is the fact that most sociolinguists work with 'network strength' scores, which are actually quite different from the ideas sketched out previously in the discussion of network theory. I think this merits a somewhat more detailed and clearer discussion, especially since it comes up again in some of the case studies.
• I'd recommend putting the computational simulation study *after* the actual empirical studies.
• In discussing the individual studies, I think a sentence at the outset indicating the major findings or the significance of the study would be very helpful
• Edit for awkward prose, e.g. "Social network analysis positions itself atop the notion that a social network..."
• In most cases avoid formulations like "Leslie Milroy says...", "In Fagyal et al.'s paper, it is argued that..."; instead cite via hyperlink or inline citation, as appropriate.

As I said at the beginning though, you've done good work so far in gathering and synthesizing information. Now your task is to organize it more clearly and emphasize the more important points. Ldmanthroling (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)