User talk:Jk1618

Thanks for the input Justin, I will take your comments into consideration while working on the Media Richness Theory page. I just went through your project and the Diffusion of Innovations wikipedia page. I think the page is quite clear and the theory is easy to understand, even though i'm a little bit biased since I wrote about that theory on class. I think the content is clear and the theory and is explained through, however like you mentioned there are a lot of subsections and a lot of stubs in the page. Have you considered expanding the Criticism section or maybe the Failed Diffusion section that would be really interesting to see. Also even though there is a Domains and Role of Social Systems have yo considered adding a Applications section where you could possibly talk on how the theory has some effects on today's world? I read that you are looking for more recent material/citations to incorporate into the page and that might be a really good way to do it.

Ae482 (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin - Overall I think this page provides a very thorough and clear content for diffusion of innovations theory, I also see that you have added and revised the page quite much! Compared to some other theory pages for the course, this page is one of the most developed. However, as I read through the page I sort felt that the page is too lengthy (in a good way). It's great that it provides details to the numerous aspects associated with the theory, however, I think some sections need to be trimmed down a bit. The page should be concentrated more on the core. A few of my suggests are: 1.Intro paragraph: this paragraph is very important and I think the current one is not tied together enough. Maybe a little more "juice"could be added to it. The overview of Roger's book is too lengthy, you might want to delete "the book is now in its 5th edition (2006)", this is a detail that viewers don't necessarily need to know (keep in mind this page is not about the book).

2.History section: this section needs to be more concise and shortened. I personally think the length of this part is overwhelming, I felt like I was reading about a person's biography of some sort which I don't think should be the case with a communication theory.

3. Elements section: All of the charts are very helpful to the viewers, but there are too many of them. Perhaps keep the most important ones and explain the others with concise words? These my thoughts for now, please feel free to discuss with me if you'd like! --Zl116 (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion of innovations

Hey Jk1618, I'm providing online support for your communications theory class and I had a few comments on your changes to diffusion of innovations:

In general we only "wikilink" articles once or twice, so once medical sociology is linked in the first paragraph of the history section it doesn't need to be linked in the second. The basic rule of thumb is if you are looking at the page in a normal desktop browser window you should see a link only once--for longer articles two links might be useful, but you usually don't need them in quick succession.
Names of section headings should not be title cased, so where you have "Characteristics of Innovations " it should be "Characteristics of innovations " (proper nouns are still capitalized)
I love tables for topics like this, but I think you'll better be able to explain the concept if you convert some of the tables you have back to prose. For sections like Characteristics of Innovations a table works great, because we're scanning each row to match characteristic, definition and role. For a section like Elements we might be better served by elaborating on the elements in a few paragraphs which allows us (and the reader) to better contextualize each element (because the relationship between them is important, we're not just scanning a single row). Likewise with the five stages of the adoption process--though that's probably ok as a table.
Innovation diffusion is one of those topics which has a lot of focus in other social sciences (namely economics). I don't recommend that you dig through research articles in that topic yourself (as the top level journals in econ can be arcane) but the Journal of Economic Perspectives has a few articles on the subject written for a more general audience (JEP is a general interest economic journal that invites top econ scholars to write slightly more accessible summaries of a given dispute or field), here and here. I can dig up a literature review if you're interested in adding some more general work (which may work better in concert with the meta studies and literature reviews you have now). There is also a lot of work on patents and diffusion of innovation if you want to bolster the policy section a bit.

This looks like a great effort so far, I'll swing back in a few days and see if I have any further comments. If you have any questions please feel free to let me know here or on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in to note that the recent changes you've made to the article look good. Let me know on my talk page if you need a hand with anything else. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]