Talk:Internet relationship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Post name-change[edit]

I see that the name has been changed and that is fine with me. You should note that in Psychology, the term relationship (or interpersonal relationship) is used broadly to include both romantic and non-romantic relationships. So the title seems appropriate. However, the intro paragraph is still talking about 'friendships', so it no longer fits the heading. I suggest that the page remain as is (not be merged with another page) and both types of internet relationships are covered.Lord Spring Onion (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

This article looks good, but is written a bit too much like an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article, I'll make a few copy edits to show how it should be changed and hopefully you can do the rest. SmartSE (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This morning I put in some subheadings to give you some idea for how the info could be broken up into sections, and I also reworked some of the prose to make it clearer and a little more concise.
I do agree with Smartse that this article still reads far too much like an essay, and not nearly enough like an encyclopedia entry, which is what it is supposed to be. An encyclopedia entry consists of setting out useful, well-organized information for the reader to easily access, in a clear and usable form, based on reliable sources. An essay on the other hand is a flowing and sometimes elegant discussion on the theme of the topic. They are not the same thing at all. If you need me to explain this a bit more, let me know. Invertzoo (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the text of this article could stand some copyediting to tighten it into an encyclopedic style. One maxim of technical writing that I've taken to heart is "write as if your audience doesn't have time to read every single thing you say." To that end, terse, telegraphic sentences seem to work well. The atmosphere here is meant to be helpful, not harsh, and I hope it can be seen in that light. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting "Weakening of social ties" section[edit]

Did a little trimming, and removed the following paragraph:

However, the question must remain, not whether the internet holds a positive or a negative impact for its users but instead lies within whether the internet disintegrates or develops our social skills needed for the physical world or as it is more commonly known by internet users, "real life" or "meatspace". Can the Internet cure people who ail from insufficient social skills i.e. containing greater social anxieties or maintain smaller social groups.

There is a nugget of information in there, but I'm not sure how best to present it. It seems to be saying that it is less useful to ask if the net is a good or bad influence (I reserve the word "impact" for times when something is actually being hit) and more useful to see things in terms of growth or degradation of users' social skill sets. That is worth one well-crafted sentence, at most. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

References[edit]

Just changed the references slightly in the article. As the Ref name was missing from all of the references. Resulting in multiple references being listed for the same source. Just need to make sure everything is referenced correctly and in the same manner every time. LucianaFash (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The effects... (changes)[edit]

Hi, Thank you for your feedback. I've made quite a few edits to the writing today. Does this sound any better or am I just not grasping this at all. Kate Carter-Rigg (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes that section is now a lot better than it was! Well done! Invertzoo (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks a lot more like an encyclopedia article now. A few days have seen a mighty improvement. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi, you have a great article. I am doing an assignment for class and was interested in the same topic. I added a few sections and a couple sentences in pre-existing sections. I hope you don't mind! I wanted to make sure it is okay I continue to make edits and add information. I won't delete any of your sections! Thank you Eewalsh (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Eewalsh

Plagiarism[edit]

... from this site; removed. I'll begin checking the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Hey, I just noticed that under "Personal" you may not need both links to youtube right next to each other, one is probably enough Jillgeib (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


Thank you! I keep forgetting whether or not I should link words after I have already linked them before in the article. Do you know if the word should only be linked once? I have looked at a few other wikipedia articles and some contain only one link for the word and others have the word linked a few times throughout the article. Thanks for the editing feedback! Eewalsh (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Eewalsh

Where internet relationships start, and possible dangers[edit]

OK so I looked over your page quickly and I think you could maybe add a section on where Internet Relationships start, for example, over facebook or eharmony and the effectiveness of these websites. Also you could maybe talk about how internet relationships can be dangerous and how people can be manipulated over these websites... I'll go over it again but these were some of the first additions that came to my mind when looking over it. (Bemurrayy (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for your comment. Please be aware, when saying "your page," that no editor or group of editors owns any Wikipedia article. I've seen similar language in other places around this article; not pointing any finger of blame, but trying to make people aware of a vital bit of Wikipedia culture. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bemurrayy ! I will try to create a subsection for the "personal" section and include where/ why these relationships start online and I could definitely use the sources I have to include the dangers. Thanks for the advice! Eewalsh (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Eewalsh

weighted[edit]

I added cleanup because this article weight too much towards internet romance. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)