Social web was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 22, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Globalization Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Software: Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Community (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Community, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CommunityWikipedia:WikiProject CommunityTemplate:WikiProject CommunityCommunity

This article predates the quoted article by nearly a decade:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985581,00.html

"The idea is that we will lead the transformation of the Web into a social Web,"

The reference mentioned above: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985581,00.html is a nice reference from 1996. The quotation is apt.

But which article mentioned above is the predated one? Is it the The Social Web Research Program at http://www.fit.fhg.de/~hoschka/Social%20Web.htm dated 1998? This is a nice historic document.

The other reference is CSCW research at GMD-FIT: from basic groupware to the social Web at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=290576 This is not good at all in the sense that the material is not generally accessible. I do not have an ACM account. (Михал Орела 15:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

I have added a people-friendly definition of Social Web and give Flickr as a first example. I now propose to give a few others grouped appropriately. For example, MySpace, Bebo, and Facebook are all in the same category of "I want to tell you all who I am and what I do and what I like". (Михал Орела 16:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

just corrected spelling of MySpace (Михал Орела 07:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

I like these. I wondered where they came from. I googled: social attributes identity who are you, and found a direct source at http://connollyshaun.blogspot.com/2008/05/7-key-attributes-of-social-web.html (date of last access 2008-07-01)

At the very least one ought to have added this reference. (Михал Орела 08:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

As part of a course on social theory at the University of Pittsburgh, my classmates/fellow editors wish to propose an overhaul of this page in the following areas:

1. Revision of the article abstract/introduction

2. Inclusion of a segment on the history and development of the social web -- Ethan

3. Expansion of the segment on the technology that make the social web possible (XRI, etc.) -- Erik ---If Erik is not doing this, I think we should eliminate it.

• This section is not necessary Erikmhatter (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Creation of a segment on social interaction and group mechanics through the social web today and how it is facilitated. Inclusion of a listing of the various options/interactions today's social user has an opportunity to partake in -- general, through forums, chat rooms and social networking sites with friends and strangers alike, as well as special interest sites that bring similar individuals together to discuss hobbies - combined with social web today

5. Addition of a segment on social gaming and augmented reality as it relates to the social web (with mentions of games played over social networking sites). This section will include information pertaining to the rewards (both physical and social) for completing these social games (or exploring their social implementations/reaching out to others) and for sharing your results with friends and strangers alike. -- Erik and myself (Russell) --- I also think this can be eliminated now.

6. New section on the fully realized interconnectedness of the social web: the constant presence of opportunities to link into facebook, twitter, and other social networking sites. The ability to share your interests and discoveries while browsing the web with others via that networking.

• Tagging and Social Bookmarking references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsoruss (talk • contribs) 01:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. New section on social web in relation to web 2.0/3.0 - not important to our topic

8. Revision of segment on identity and provision of new information in relation to the social web (creation of separate online identity vs extension of personality into the web). We plan to incorporate the Proteus effect into this section, making its rather stub-like article unnecessary. - Melanie --- not relevant. Attaching info to stub of Proteus Effect.

9. Addition of a segment on social interactions that begin on the web and then carry over into real life. Examples include dating websites, ebay, and craigslist. Explain what types of relationships come out of these. - Melanie

10. Creation of a segment on social interaction/feedback mechanisms built into websites not originally intended for that purpose exclusively. Examples include allrecipes.com, where individuals can share their feedback on recipes shared by one user. - Russell - combined with social web today

11. New section on collaborative efforts through the social web -- example includes open source projects that include a community of developers advising each other and working together on one project. - Erik ----can mention in social web

• This section now exists Erikmhatter (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12. Additional section on crowd sourcing through the social web -- tie-ins with social or augmented reality games and marketing research and surveys, focus groups, Facebook polls, etc. - Erik - combined with social web today

• This section now exists Erikmhatter (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a small section on social art, as it deserves at least a mention. Erikmhatter (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnail image of share buttons added. Erikmhatter (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is by no means a complete, exhaustive list, but this will be the general framework for our contribution to this page. Rsoruss (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good plan. Also, try to discuss things here and interact with one another, rather than just "declare" things. Check out how the Talk:Economic globalization group is doing that.

Keep in mind that you will be graded as a group, so while individual activity is important (it will "weight" your grade), you are welcome to help your colleagues with their sections. By editing only your own section, you run the risk of it being in a different style than those of your colleagues. also, keep in mind that the lead, while not the largest part of the article, should summarize all the other sections, so it is a section that is usually best written in collaboration by all editors editing the article.

Don't forget to reference all content you are adding. Usually one reliable reference per sentence is enough (but if you build your sentence relying on multiple sources, you'll use more than one ref per sentence).

You can receive email (or other) notifications whenever this page is changed. See Wikipedia:Syndication for how-to.

Other things to keep in mind: 1) you are welcome to ask for suggestions and advice from others; try doing so by visiting the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above 2) if you mange to significantly improve the article over the course of five days, you can list it at T:TDYK and see your work featured on Wikipedia's main page (this will also net you extra credit).

I will be looking forward to seeing the sources you plan on using.

PS. Don't forget that you should all be editing individually, so don't have your colleagues post your sections for you. If this happens, they will get all the credit, and you will get none. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note to my fellow group members: not sure if this is obvious, but you can access all of Pitt's online article databases via remote login. This will make it convenient to access the wealth of information available to us through databases (including google scholar, JSTOR, etc.) from home! I've found google scholar to be the best source of information for what we're doing. I've pulled off a number of good articles on social marketing, gaming and identified some terms that should be present in the article, notably "tagging" and Social bookmarking (i.e. the bookmark bar pic I sent around). I can send or post specifics later if anyone would like! Rsoruss (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that we need to condense some of these topics, or at least reign them in -- I feel that any social gaming section we do should only relate to facebook/social network games and tagging, for example. MMO social groups and habits have their own wiki pages and its too much for us to try to cover in this article (not to mention, its somewhat outside of the range of the Internet exactly). Thoughts on this or any other sections that should be condensed or expanded?--Rsoruss (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One way to start is to remove all unreferenced content. Or move it here, and see what is worth rescuing (referencing/rewriting). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing edits include History paragraph, but I'll looking at some sources ("Designing for the Social Web" by Joshua Porter and the already referenced Kim Won article "On social Web sites") that would give the lead paragraph some cited info. I'm also thinking of integrating the classifications paragraph in the current social web paragraph, what do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsoruss (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to history section are for the most part finished on my part -- I'm tempted to completely remove the "Social Web as a Future Network" section, since a lot of it is unverified or uncited and it doesn't seem necessary since we're already including information in other sections about how the social web is developing -- any input? --Rsoruss (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination done. Tyod (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Added the subtopic--Rsoruss (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the template to the top of the page, per style. Good job guys, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the sections on collaborative efforts. Erikmhatter (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great -- also just found this source, which should solve our lead paragraph definition of social web problems: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/XGR-socialweb-20101206/ -- there's a lot to be mined here, I think--Rsoruss (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the picture that's been uploaded to the main page a lot, and I decided to look around the web for some additional ones. The two I've liked so far are this and this. I was also considering adding a graph to the history section that would give more exact dates for the transition from static web sites to two-way conversation and then multi-way conversations. What do you guys think?--Rsoruss (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images are nice, as long as they are relevant. But remember that images have to be free. See my comment to Erik here for what I mean, and guides that explain how to work with images. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporarily moved these section to the talk page so we can determine if they're worth inclusion in the article anymore. In the case of the "future of the social web," I feel it will need to be reworked if it is to be reincluded--Rsoruss (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have made some good progress with the article, but remember, folks - this is supposed to be a group project, and I am not seeing much of the group activity. That worries me... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to commend you on recognizing that the Proteus effect is off topic, and merging it to the Proteus effect article. Such actions does count towards extra credit. You may want to consider if the other sections cannot be saved in a similar fashion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social interactions through the social web have become a vital part of life for many Internet users, as many social websites support a small number of default groups and assign new members to one or more of them, also allowing members to explicitly form new groups, and/or join them.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsoruss (talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term in this context was introduced in 1998 by Peter Hoschka in a paper called "CSCW research at GMD-FIT: From Basic Groupware to the Social Web".^[2][3] The paper identifies 6 research topics relevant to the Social Web: personal representation and virtual identities; mutual perception and social awareness; formation and establishment of norms and conventions; self organisation of groups and communities; social construction of community knowledge; software agents as mediators in social processes.

In July 2004 the paper "The Social Web: Building an Open Social Network with XDI" describes how the introduction of a new protocol for distributed mediated data sharing and synchronization, XDI, could enable a new layer of trusted data interchange applications. The key building blocks for this layer are I-names and I-numbers (based on the OASIS XRI specifications), Dataweb pages, and link contracts.^[4]

Perhaps the best analogy for the Social Web is the worldwide banking and credit card system. This infrastructure has evolved over centuries to facilitate the global exchange of a very sensitive form of data — money — by establishing a common means of exchange among trusted third party service providers — banks. The Social Web takes the same approach for exchange of private, sensitive information by establishing a common means of exchange among trusted third party service providers — i-brokers.

Good start. But:

1. only the first sentence uses the term "social web", and it is uncited
2. the rest of this para is about social media, not social web. One of your tasks should be to clarify this distinction (what is the difference between social media and social web)?
3. do not capitalize words unless they should be capitalzized. Neither social web nor social media should be capitalized, they are just regular words.

Keep up the good job, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Piotrus -- I'll look for a source to cite for that first sentence but as I understand it the social web is a term that encompasses interactions that occur primarily on social networking and social media sites. Because of that I felt it made sense for the history section to relate heavily to the development of such sites. I'll keep my eye out though! --Rsoruss (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guys,

I was reading the economic globalization page, and it got me thinking that maybe we could mention something on how the web impacts other countries. Not a lot since were focusing on the social aspects of the web, but I think it would be something interesting to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjc106 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey fellow group mates, I think if we have time we could examine the impact of the social web on other countries, but I think we should first pin down how it affects interpersonal communication, if we look at that. I think we're off to a good start, but we need to tackle a few things which have been brought up -- most notably the lack of the term "social web" from many of our entries. I think we need to just do a better job of tying them together -- for example, social media and social networking sites largely comprise the social interaction that makes up the social web, and so while they are independent terms they are important to the explanation of what social web is. I'm not through editing history, so thanks for the feedback guys! Also, I'm not sure what to do about the proteus effect...at this point it's been said its not that related, so should we cut it? --Rsoruss (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys so far what you've done looks really good. The history section was really easy to follow-it was brief yet still covered all of the major events. I saw the section of "social interactions" was really short. If you're planning on adding to it that'd be great but if not I'm not so sure its necessary becuase its so short. Other than that it looks great!!--Ler321 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys I agree that some of the sections are relatively short but other than that, the article is informative and easy to read! Ebw7 (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys -- yeah some of the sections are a little brief but we'll be adding to them shortly!--Rsoruss (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I think you did a really great job so far. I just wanted to mention that the origins of the web were for government use and though it was government, it was also a social process. I would probably mention the purpose of the web started out to communicate over distance and thus was always a social vehicle. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bruce, a good suggestion -- the source referenced doesn't give a great overview of the original intent of the internet, so there's definitely room for expansion and clarification there!--Rsoruss (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Your group seems to have done a really great job! I was reading your article and considering what could be added and it dawned on me. So with the social web extending into our lives as the years go by, we've all heard or witnessed types of crime, harassment, and other unfavorable things. I think it would be a nice (word choice..?) addition to say something about the possible perils that come along with the social web. But all the sections read very nicely, very well worded.Sandere0 (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what I wrote on the history section, here are some other thoughts:

• intro (WP:LEAD) should summarize the article, not introduce new concepts
• definition of what social web is should be referenced; while the lead first para has an end reference, it is not clear if this covers more than the very last sentence
• Proteus effect - seems mostly unrelated (too detailed), it should probably be split off to its own article (assuming it is notable). Remember, this article is about social web, and should not into too minute details of some obscure related phenomena
• as I told you earlier, some old content of this article is junk, don't hesitate to move it here and out of your way
• "The first is an open global distributed data sharing network similar to today's World Wide Web, except instead of linking documents, the Social Web will link people, organizations, and concepts." - the first what? This unreferenced sentence is one of the examples of what you may want to kill (at the very least, it needs rewrite & referencing)
• "Open social networks using FOAF has been around since 2000." - so how is it relevant? And unreferenced
• "Perhaps the best analogy for the Social Web is the worldwide banking and credit card system." - perhaps yes, perhaps not; in either case, "perhaps" is not a very encyclopedic style. Also - says who? Unreferenced, raises possible WP:NOR issue...
• "Earlier uses of the term include:" - lists with one bullet point should not really be lists...
• "Social interactions" - relevance?
• "Web to Real Life" - and an entire section that does not even use the term "social web" at least one. Either it needs to be adapted (rewritten with sources that use this term), or it should go. Remember: "social web" =/= "social media", "Internet", "world wide web"... it is something more specific that you need to clarify
• did I mention earlier that you may want to start by (re)moving a lot of the existing content? It creates an illusion that there is meat to this article, where in fact there is just a lot of junk that will get in your way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS. Try to focus on the "social" aspect. Our course is, after all, social, not CS. Fortunately, the nature of social web is quite social indeed - don't get distracted by some CS-related technicalities. You are doing well so far, but make sure to use sources that talk about social web. Google Books and Google Scholar, as I demonstrated in class a while back, are your friends. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey group,

I checked out the changes. Sorry I havent been much help since Monday. Im still on vacation, but I managed to get on a computer. Ive been checking my email and trying to check this on my phone. So if you guys think there is ANYTHING that I can add too, please do not hesitate, I will manage to complete it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjc106 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Social web/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Smallman12q (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You should mention the effects of the social web on public relations and marketing/advertising

The terms public relations, marketing, and advertising do not appear in the article.

• It's usage in data mining

The term has not yet been explicitly used...

• Mention how the social web was preceded by the telephone - In the first paragraph now Mjc106 (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Mention the older definition of social web: as a web of interpersonal relations Russel??Mjc106 (talk)
  • I'm hitting bit of a rough spot finding information on this -- I've got a source I'm looking at but would you care to provide any suggestions as to where/at what I should look?--Rsoruss (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Mention how social web applications are built Erik?? Mjc106 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This information is included now. Erikmhatter (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs more wikilinks - I have been working on this Mjc106 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once these issues are addressed, I'll look it over again. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here.Smallman12q (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some good suggestions there. Note that you do not necessarily have to write entire sections to address those issues, paragraphs (or paragraph-long subsections) may be enough to address the "comprehensivity" issue. I'll also trow in one more meaning: the pre-Internet social web, as referring to the network of social relations (see if you can find a better definition here, and you can see the use of this term in pre-1990 books on Google Books, for example). To cover this, you may need a brief section on "meaning outside the Internet context" or something similar. This does not need to be longer than few sentences, but it would add to the article, as some people may come to this expecting to read about social web in this older context. This para would also allow you to tie the meaning of this term closer to our course; note that this meaning may be not connected to the more modern, Internet-focused, primary meaning you've been describing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to put a parenthetical disambiguation on the title of the page, as to only refer to Internet age social web? This would nullify the need for a pre-Internet mention. If not, we can look into adding a small note. Erikmhatter (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would, but that would require the other article to exist in the first place. If you feel like it would be better, you can create article on social web (non-Internet context), stub it and adding a disambig, but I think that for now, a small note would be better. Plus, I am not happy with my proposed title above, so till we figure out a better name, new article may not be the best idea. Good thought, though. And if you have an idea for a better title, do suggest it here, certainly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's coming along...here are some additional comments:

• is it "social web" or "social Web"? I have seen it both ways, but in most books and articles I have read it it just social web. I only saw 1 or 2 in which it was social Web. Mjc106 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• the lead needs some improvement...
  • there shouldn't be an external link in there
    • Corrected, no longer an external link in the lead paragraph--Rsoruss (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • it should be broken into 2 paragraphs: a description of social web and a summary of its impact

I have adjusted this section so it is in two paragraphs, and moved the information I put in yesterday into the history section. Do I need to make this section more dense, or is it ok now? Mjc106 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be more "meaty." Also needs more wikilinking such as for relationship -> interpersonal relationship. Have a look at other social science GANs to get an idea of what is needed to pass (Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society).Smallman12q (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 2

I added a few more sentences to the first section. I am not sure what else I can add without sounding redundant. If anyone has any ideas please feel free to throw them in. Mjc106 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• all paragraphs and sections need to be referenced
• the "see also" section is a bit unweildy, have you looked at {{navbox}}?
• you could add quote boxes to add some "color" to the article...for an example see their usage in iLoo

Smallman12q (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • The best way to deal with the see also section is to prune it. All relevant links should be included in body, all irrelevant one - killed. Best see also sections have no more than 2-3 links - if they exist at all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-I think we covered most of the sections in our article. I am just going to get rid of the section. Mjc106 (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 3

Some additional comments. Please read Wikipedia:Good article criteria to see what is expected of a GA.

• Please use the terms public relations, online marketing, online advertising and data mining explicitly in describing the social Web.
• I suggest the intro be 3 paragraphs instead of 2: 1st one defining the term, 2nd describing the history, 3rd reflecting its relevance today
• The historical aspects of the social web are somewhat neglected. There should be a mention of the early, non-graphical social web such as listserv, IRC, MUDs and even VRMLs. You should mention how the early web was social, was subsequently commercialized (the social portion took a backseat), and following the bubble, the social portion was more prominent (source)...
• The technical aspects of the social web are neglected...Ruby, PHP, Python , Java are Dynamic programming language. There should be a mention of Perl and cgi which were used back in the day.
• There doesn't seem to be a mention of social web browsers such as Flock (web browser) and RockMelt. There also should be a mention of how certain software such as AIM and Skype improve the social web experience
• WP:NPOV- The article should be nuetral...this means avoiding giving certain websites undue weight such as with the sentence: "Often APIs are utilized to tie non-social websites to social websites, one example being Campusfood.com."
• There doesn't seem to be a criticism section, or any criticism of the social web. Criticism includes: privacy concerns, participation in the social web detracts from and may substitute for real life social activities, the cost of participation in the social web in terms of lost productivity from distracted employees, abuse such as online bullying in the social web, and the ability to influence people toward "radical" attitudes and behaviors. (There is more...you'll have to find sources...)
• The prose should be clear and concise...some of the sentences are akward...
• All sections, and preferably all sentences must have at least one source. There really shouldn't be any {{cn}} in a GA.
• It'd be nice if you could add some quotes in...though it's not required for GA.

Some sources you can use (you can use http://reftag.appspot.com/ to cite google books), or add to further reading:

• Richardson, Will (2009). "6: The Social Web learning together". Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Corwin Press. ISBN 9781412959711. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
• Pardede, Eric (29 May 2011). "Social Web: Web 2.0 Technologies to enhance knowledge communities". Community-Built Databases: Research and Development. Springer. ISBN 9783642190469. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
• Tomei, Lawrence A. (30 October 2010). "Using the Social Web Environment". Online Courses and Ict in Education: Emerging Practices and Applications. IGI Global snippet. ISBN 9781609601508. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
• Dumova, Tatyana; Fiordo, Richard (1 January 2009). "Social Capital, Social networks, and the Social Web". Handbook of Research on Social Interaction Technologies and Collaboration Software: Concepts and Trends. IGI Global snippet. ISBN 9781605663685. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
• Dingli, Alexiei (30 April 2011). Knowledge Annotation: Making Implicit Knowledge Explicit. Springer. pp. 36–37. ISBN 9783642203220. Retrieved 14 June 2011. - describes early social web experiment

Hey Group,

How do you want to split these items up. I will look up some stuff today, and we can go from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjc106 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can do a brief section on data mining and how social web apps are built.Erikmhatter (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Social web apps building information is now included, once for websites, and another for mobile applications. Erikmhatter (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Does Data Mining specifically have a place here? As I've mentioned using the information from social web pages for market research, etc..., so does it need expanded or not? Erikmhatter (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a line about the phone. Here is the diff in case anyone wants to add anything, or change it around. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_web&diff=433467039&oldid=433446415 Mjc106 (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for mentions of the older definition of social web, but frankly I don't think it's very necessary or relevant to the rest of the article. Still if it's needed (at least while there isn't another article on the pre-Internet social web) then I can cover it. I'm swamped today and tomorrow though so I'll get to it as soon as I can. --Rsoruss (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article still requires a thorough copyedit.Smallman12q (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 of copy edits completed -- some cleanup still needed on Social Web to real life section that I'll continue later. Also I've added several Citation needed tags where I thought it appropriate -- I'm not sure if all of them need to be filled in but there are several lines where a source should be attributed to the information or statement contained within.--Rsoruss (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Smallman's question about whether we are terming it "social web" or "social Web," I would argue that we go with the latter -- this would make the meaning less ambiguous by tying it back to this term's relation to the web itself, in my opinion. Thoughts?--Rsoruss (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really sure on this one, I saw it both ways. I can go in and capitalize the second W in all of them if this is what were deciding on. Let me know. Mjc106 (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of "social Web," personally. If you need help going through should we go with it I can help change the wording over--Rsoruss (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got them all, just double check. Mjc106 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else that you guys think we need to hit? I think we got mostly everything. Mjc106 (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is still work to be done. As grad students, you may be a bit dismayed by additional work, but a thorough GA is something many Wikipedians look forward to. I hope I don't appear any more demanding than Piotrus=P. If you have any questions, please ask.Smallman12q (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're actually undergrads, but we understand there is still work to be done. There's a lot to cover and only three people, but we'll do what we can.--Rsoruss (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I thought Piotrus was w/ grad students. Anyhow, if you need help, let me know and I'll fill in some of the missing info.Smallman12q (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more references. Erikmhatter (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should use WP:RS for a GA. This means not self-published...unless the blog is part of a major organization.Smallman12q (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, Smallman12q, if you think the article has progressed beyond start, perhaps you'd like to reassess it to C or B classes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reassessed the article as B-Class : "The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. " per Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. It is mostly complete...and it is mostly well sourced. I'll close the GA Review on the 20th.Smallman12q (talk)

Thank you very much for your time reviewing our article. Erikmhatter (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you very much for your time and effort! --173.79.69.217 (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. You guys came a long way from when you started.Smallman12q (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may want to check those links I just found today: [1], [2]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following are a list of unresolved issues as requested by Piotrus:

• The article does not adequately address public relations, advertising, marketing, and data mining in relation to the social web
• The article does not adequately address the increasing commercialization of the social web (in terms of companies with higher valuations based on the social web such as facebook)
• The article does not mention the role and response of the government to social web (such as United States Air Force Web Posting Response)
• The article lacks criticism on the subject
• The article doesn't adequately summarize historical internet technologies pertaining to the social web( such as listserv)
• There is no mention of VRMLs or similar technologies and their relation
• The technologies used to implement the modern social web require expansion
• The intro lacks a historical summary
• The historical social web should also be covered (OCLC 1153026)
• WP:RS

Smallman12q (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The assignment has ended, and I don't expect any further student editing as the motivation (grade) is gone (although it would be a nice surprise). The article has been improved from start to B-class. Thanks for you assistance, hopefully somebody else can take the points above and improve the article further! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If people are looking for more share icons, and what they might mean (what I was looking for), this website has a frighteningly large list (don't know how many are real): http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php (might be useful to have a wp page on these things?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Social Web Share Buttons.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 7 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Social Web Share Buttons.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dingklik.heck.in adalah blog ter baik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semrawut (talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]