Talk:Internet studies

Untitled

This article is not about "academia", it is about "Internet Studies" which may or may not occur within an institution of higher education,just as internet research may or may not occur within a University. Many of the links on the page are to sites that may be related to and have members from such institutions, they are not necessarily a functions of those institutions. AOIR claims to be "academic" but it is not the function of any specific institution; it is populated by academics but is not an technicaly academic institution. I know several people who are not a part of any such organ. According to Buridan's own argument it should not be listed on the page.

The most appropriate word to describe "Internet Studies" is "scholarship" not "academia". If someone wants to create a page that is about academic programs they should create it.

Would someone less biased please weight in. Wreid (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Halavais edits

Alex Halavaise continues to bar The Center for Internet Research from the scholarly orgainzation section of this page. IMHO, his edit it based on a bias that is born of his position (a VP) in AOIR. When he deletes the link he invairably leaves AOIR linked.

In addition, when deletes he fails to provide a reason for his actions. In fairness he should at least explain. I request othe editors weigh-in before we get in to another editing war. I awat advice and intruction. Wreid (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

AoIR is a notable scholarly organization. It would be whether or not I was the current VP. The Center for Internet Research is not. This isn't anything to be ashamed of--we all have to start somewhere. I have led and participated in a number of organizations that are not notable, and continue to do so, happily. AoIR may not have been notable in its first few years of existence. There are many hundred possible organizations that could be linked here, but Wikipedia is not a directory. If CIR reaches any level of real importance to the field, I'll champion its inclusion. Halavais (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument about "Notability" exposes the bias I allege (WP:npov). We have people, publications, and events that make us worthy of inclusion. You are the last person I would expect to know what we are doing. Besides we are not (at this time) trying to get our own article. We are only fighting for a link. With all due respect, we have generated 4 peer reviewed papers, 2 book chapters, a colloqui at UIC, and 2 confernces in the last year. We have made presentation in three different disciplines. You should take a look at the membership at our blog TCFIR-blog Our membership is world-wide. Of the participants that I know are also AOIR, more than 50% of them have friended me personally. While we do not have the size of AOIR we are more than what you seem to think. We are 1/3 the numbers shown on facebook for AOIR in sustaining members. I know we are larger than WSRI.

After reading notable I wonder if you have read it. (no offense intended). If you are honest in your assertion that you would be our champion, you should do it right now. Allow us a link!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreid (talk • contribs) 05:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPROV I would love to see someone that is not nearly as partisan as Halavais, Hunsinger, or me involved in a fair apraisal of notable. Someone who would actually look at the verifiable information associated with TCFIR. Wreid (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a far better use of everyone's time would be to improve what is frankly a pretty poor article with real content, rather than "fighting for a link." Right now it is too much a directory--something Wikipedia is not supposed to be. This isn't a place for self (or other, for that matter) promotion, it's a shared encyclopedia. Maybe we should focus on contributing to that mission. Halavais (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to delete the whole section and I will help you rewrite the whole page. Wreid (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statement about the quality of the page is true enough but is falsified by your undoing the deletion of the link to AOIR. Wreid (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion

I can find plenty of references establishing the notability of the Centre for Internet Research, viz [1], [2], [3], Doehrman, Marylou (17 February 2006). "Colorado Springs Technology Briefs" (subscription required). Colorado Springs Business Journal. Retrieved 2009-11-01. so I see no reason for excluding this organisation, and it would appear from the editing behaviour of User:Halavais taht there may be a COI here. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, this isn't a third opinion, but a fifth or sixth. A glance at the history will show that I am the most recent in a stream of longtime Wikipedia editors who have been trying to stop the addition of this link on this article and others. I have no problem with linking to information about ICSI's Center for Internet Studies, which is the topic of 1, 2, & 3 above. This is not the organization at issue here. The International Computer Science Institute has been around for more than 2 decades and has substantial credibility, and if someone thought that linking to their article made sense here, that would be fine. I assume that the other reference is this one, in which case it clearly does refer to Wreid's self-styled "center".

I do have a COI--Wreid scraped the membership list of AIR-L and used it to spam, used sockpuppets on that list when banned, and someone (cough!) has set up fake profiles for prominent individuals on his network on Ning and used them to invite others. So yes, having seen this elsewhere, his attempt to hijack the conversation here on Wikipedia is not unfamiliar. It's bad for Wikipedia and for the field. As someone who has championed Wikipedia's ability to work out accurate information more often than it doesn't, it would pain me to see it manipulated in that way, but as I've said elsewhere, I will do what the other three editors who have blocked its addition have done, and stand aside. I've made my position clear enough here on the talk page. Halavais (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alex, the one thing that you have said that is absolutely true is , "I do have a COI." The honesty is unexpected. Please don't think your rant is about the welfare of Wikipedia! Wreid (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells, actually Alex is correct in saying you mistakenly picked the wrong references. However if you do a simple google search (TCFIR.org) you can find any number of links that apply. You can also do a search on google scholar (Reid Cornwell). I've written a few things. I just did this and found connections that I didn't know about. I would appreciate you taking another look just to satisfy, re-enforce or falsify your opinion. IMHO and sadly, you could find 10 thousand appropriate links and you could not convince him or his friends. Thank you for your effort. Wreid (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

for my part it is a question of notability in terms of google links/mentions too... aoir.org 1.2 million... and tcfir.org... 2800.... it is clearly just a difference in kind. all the significant organizations have numbers in the hundreds of thousands or above. I do not see why dr. cornwell can't see the obvious difference in scale and value. I am not against tcfir having a place, when it has made its place, but again, any analysis will show that it has not in any way become notable, nor noteworthy in any way that is not merely the promotional efforts of its primary advocates. I would say that once tcfir has managed to be notable enough to have a page on wikipedia, then it is clearly notable. but currently, it is a question of 'one of these things is not like the others, can you tell me... which one?" --Buridan (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, at least your argument is reasonable, even though I don't agree! Wreid (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going with the Third opinion. The 2 of you can do whatever you will. Wreid (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Independently verifiable indications of Notability

For the record, a Google Search on "The Center For Internet Research" (in quotations) produces 579,000 results (retrieved 10/10/2009). Not all are the center in Colorado. Here is a sample:

• Signal and Noise: The Power of n-Dimensional Query and Education (NECC Peer reviewed)
• Elon University/Pew Internet In American Life Project
• Innovate Online Journal (2 peer reviewed articles)
• Pictures of Education-2008 Conference on Vox
• The Chronicle of Higher Education
• Peter Suber Home Page at Earham College
• Colorado Technology Briefs
• Dr. Barbara McCombs at TCFIR 2008 conference
• The Chronicle of Higher Education - July 13, 2007 - Gazette (Page A36) TCFIR article
• Rocky Mountain Information Management Association Employment Panel
• 21st Centery Education: The Real and the Ideal
• A Regis University Faculty / TCFIR director resume'
• Sim-teach Institutions and Organizations - Nov 4, 2009 ... The Center For Internet Research (tcfir)
• The Future of The Internet II Pew Internet In American Life Project

Last but not least.

• AOIR recognition - Submitted by Matt Allen their former president
• AOIR recognition in context

Wreid (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

this is why we look for 'tcfir.org' vs aoir.org because, you chose a name that would overlap with many possible notable things. and a key thing to note.. about notability is that they should be third party sources, not sources that arose out of self-promotion, cajoling, or similar actions. so most of the above wouldn't count in a notability dispute. --Buridan (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not in competition with AOIR. There is no versus. The sad truth and the error of your objections lies here. Shocking as it may seem, there is enough room for several Internet studies organizations. If making presentations, writing papers, responding to inquiries, and holding conferences is self promotion then I plead guilty. IMHO, your comments are, at best, disengenuous, but you did make my point by exposing your lack of neutrality and I suppose I should be grateful.

For the record, I don't believe the WP:3O editor Jezhotwells searched on TCFIR.org. If he/she had, they would not have found the references they did. But, logic doesn't count when you're spinning a good yarn.

On October 22, 2009, didn't you write, "buridan was jeremy hunsinger on wikipedia. he's buggered off though after realizing there was really nothing there?" Buridan Your behavior certainly falsifies your words. It appears that you don't mind misrepresenting your intentions and using a resource, you hold in contemp, when it serves your agenda? HMM! Is that what is meant by WP:Good Faith? Let's see, wasn't that written about the same time that your AOIR colleague, Halavais, started editing this page? Silly me, I should know it's just a coincidence? Wreid (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

i agree, not a competition, and there doesn't only have to be one. however, 'one of these things is not like the other' is the argument i was putting for for notability. your center as best as i can tell, has far less notability then it has promotion, and while you are welcome to promote your center almost anywhere in the world that will allow you, wikipedia actually requires notability. true, it isn't for links, but then wikipedia is not for links unless they are necessary, which again, i don't think anyone would agree that yours is necessary. now as for the rest of what you said, I think we'll just let you represent yourself and your arguments as they are and remind people that yes... they can roll back through the archives and see where you have argued in the past on a variety of locations on wikipedia. They can take it for what it is. I certainly do. --Buridan (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Necessary" is a word of opinion for which you have clearly shown a bias and there are no WP rules. The discussion is about the current appropriateness of a link, not a page. Notability rules don't apply (as you acknowledge). A WP:3O disagrees with you. No matter how much you try to deflect the conversation away from yourself, the fact remains, your biases are evident in your own words and actions. Why don't you "Bugger off" as you wrote (your words, not mine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreid (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

classic... --Buridan (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

November 3

It was a good call on the verifications issue. My mistake! Wreid (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Links

WP:COI WP:DRR Editor Halavais will not allow any addition that is not his (AOIR) brand of Internet Studies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreid (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the description of each change. First, the Society of Computers in Psychology focuses on "the appropriate and beneficial application of computing technology in psychology." In other words, they are interested in using computers as a tool for improving the practice of psychology--a noble endeavor to be sure, but not taking the internet as an object of study. Second, with regard to the Web Science Trust, it is not of a kind with the other scholarly organizations--not, that is to say, a learned society. I suspect they would not consider themselves allied with internet studies--after all, they are propounding the creation of a different field--that of "web science." (Please see that article.) That said, if you think the ideas of the Web Science Trust apply here, write it up. Otherwise, add them to the DMOZ link-list.Halavais (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Alex Halavais you actually make my point. Web Science Trust may well disagree with your definition of 'Internet Studies'. The people involved are certainly experts in their fields. Ergo, the contrary position is worthy of presentation. That is what WP:NPOV actually means. Studies of how computers and technology may have application within the domain of psychology is as valid as within any other discipline, such as the other organizations within the section. If there were in fact settled issues about the scope of "Internet studies" this would be moot, but there are no settled issues. Wreid (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If any of these folks have published a clear opinion on internet studies that would add substantively to the article it should be included. If it's just a link to a field, then--as I suggested at the outset--a "see also" for cognate fields makes sense. This might also include links to library science, cyberculture and similar. My objection is simply adding links willy-nilly, building this back into a link-list. That's what the DMOZ link is for. Halavais (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the editors Alex Halavais, Buridan, and ElKevbo are AOIR members and have weighed-in on edits to this page, I suggest the following study be considered. Emigh and Herring argue that "a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors' voices." PDF]

None of the organizations in the "Scholarly Organizations" section have, within their Wikipedia page, a discussion of the nature of "Internet studies". There is no obvious such information in their primary websites. While specific memebers of these organizations may have written such opinions, those opinions are not part of this page as in-line references. In addition the websites of these organizations are largely silent on the nature of Internet studies in general (including AOIR). If one accepts the Alex Halavais argument, then the entire section should be deleted. But this is a draconian solution. The section is about organizations that make a serious attempt to "study" aspects of the Internet. Disagreement about the nature of those studies should be expected. In fact, there is a history for the Alex Halavais position within AOIR and the WSRI/WST territorial discussion is documented. From this, it is not a great leap of logic to see the real objections. WP:COI Ergo, there is no scholarly settlement as to the boundaries of the scholarly domain, of "Internet studies", therefore the discussion should be as broad as possible.

I agree that library science should be placed in the cognate fields area. but, cyberculture is a subset of social science domain and should be in the "Topics" section.Wreid (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I just noticed that cyberculture is covered in both the "Topics" section and the "Cognate" section. IMHO, cyberculture should be removed from the "Cognates" section and library science added. Wreid (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2009

November 12 edits

The link to AOIR was redundant with a link in the History section of the body. Halavais claims to vandalism is humourous coming from a self-confessed Wikipedia vandal Once again we have a WP:COI. I also deleted links to pages and organizations that make no mention of Internet studies or the division referenced in the link. I just realized that I am not logged in. user:Wreid

External links added only when internal links were not specific to subject of the page. If CITASA link is desired Halavais should correcet the ASA page to reflect its involvement in internet studies [CITASA]. is very specific Halavais is starting another edit war based on ignorance and WP:COI Wreid (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Comments

Please don't edit Internet studies until other opinions are received!

• Is an internal link to WST appropriate for the "Scholarly Organizations" section of this article?
• Is an external link to The Society for Computers in Psychology appropriate for the "Scholarly Organizations" section of this article?
• Is an external link to Communication and Information Technologies Section of the American Sociological Association better than the current link for the "Scholarly Organizations" section of this article?
• Is an external link to The Center for Internet Research appropriate for the "Scholarly Organizations" section of this article?
• Is an a internal link to Association of Internet Researchers appropriate in the "Scholarly Organizations" section of this article, when another link is inline in the "History section?"
• Is it appropriate to link (internal or external) to a page or a site that displays no information relative to the calling article?
• Is it appropriate for the officers and members of one organization to exclude information from other similar, controversial, or less notable organizations?
• Are the rules on notability the same for links (internal or external) as articles? Wreid (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the easiest solution to most of the above questions is simply to remove the "Scholarly Organizations" link. I hate to even add this wafer-thin comment to a talk page that is already bursting with discussion--not all of it civil--about "fighting for a link." Shame as much effort hasn't been put into actually writing the article. May I say again, the problem with the article was that it already looked like a directory. There were no objections to the earlier paring, but every time there seems to be some form of middle ground, the TCFIR link gets re-inserted. I really wish we could move beyond the issues of linking and just produce a decent article. Frankly, a section of links to related learned societies is par for the course on field-defining articles, but I'm perfectly happy to forgo that section if it would put this nonsense to rest. When we adopted the earlier recommended solution--use of the WP:DMOZ template, which would have provided for the addition of a much broader range of external links over on DMOZ--Wreid deleted it. The obvious solution: writing a clearly cited section that shows the importance of these organizations to the field, is the one that has not been tried. I'd be happy to write up something that addressed recent efforts to establish web science as a field. I can't write one that would result in a link to Wreid's center, because it simply it has not had a verifiable, notable influence on the field. Halavais (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you let the process run its course without you trying to influence the outcome or changing the status quo. Let's hear from other people. I already know what you think and you know what I think. One thing that you may not know is, I'm more concerned about how you priviledge AOIR WP:COI than acquiring a link for TCFIR. However I do think they are related. I have opinions on everything you have said above, but I don't want to reveal my thoughts until there is other external input. Besides, the input is likely to alter my POV.Wreid (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would love for you to come over to our blog and explain to our members why you think we have no standing. TCFIR-Blog I would send you and Jeremy an invitation but I know you both have my IP adress blocked. Wreid (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I worry that there may be a misunderstanding of the term 'members' in your above statement. Would you like us to contact your members to explain the situation to them? Haven't you already explained that your site was apparently hijacked and they were invited by mistake and through misrepresentation? did i miss something? I worry that the term 'member' here is being used to claim some sort of representation of a valid body of people with actual interest in the center, and i do not actually think that the people listed have those properties, though surely some probably do. --Buridan (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. Wreid (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What Buridan said above is not what happened, is not what I said about it, and is inconsistent with the outcome. I will not discuss this within Wikipedia space but will respond at Reid's email Wreid (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

granted, i am not you, so i do not know your take on it, but my account is what it appeared to be from a tcfir outsider. if that is not what happened, perhaps you can put a post up on your blog explaining what happened. The outcome is likely that no one has told your members that signed up after your incident, who you are, and what happened. but i could be wrong.--Buridan (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy if you are acting in good faith, I will tell you what I know in a private exchange. I will not do it in a blog or here! Wreid (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Block requests

I think it best that Halavais, Wreid (yes me), and Buridan be blocked from editing Internet studies and Internet research. ELKevbo is an interested party, with a potential WP:COI, and although he is a member of AOIR he has shown an uncharacteristic flexibility and neutrality. I would hope that whoever takes on the task would also seek opinions from the interested parties. It would be best if no one from TCFIR or AOIR take on this task but it might be unlikely to find someone outside these communities with an interest. I am so outraged by the behavior of the other 2 editors that I know I cannot be NPOV. Wreid (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading through all the history, a topic ban might not be a bad idea. I'd note, however, that one can maintain a WP:NPOV even if one is an "interested party." Personally, I'd suggest to Wreid to go find other articles to improve, rather than making the insertion of his own link his (apparently) sole purpose on this project. ---129.89.210.19 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am more disturbed by not treating of WSRI founded by Tim Berners-Lee on equal footing with AOIR, than a link to my own site. I assert the other two editors will not allow any other organization to share the stage. I am disturbed by the content of the article because it looks like an ad for AOIR. I am disturbed by the tag team editing of the other two editors. When I ask for a WP:3O and they fought the opinion, at that point I gave up on my personal interest. I have not attempted to post my link since the WP:3O opinion. I asked for an opinion on the WP:notability issue just to see if somone else would see the rules the way I see them. I'm outraged by suppression of diverse opinions by these editors. To put it bluntly, I could give a damm about my link. I agree that one can maintain WP:NPOV as an interested party, but that is not the case here. I know that I can't conform to WP:neutrality and I sure as hell cannot assume GOOD FAITH. I would be happy as a clam for an outcome that is fair, even if our link is excluded. Wreid (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you sit back, stay cool, and let the RfC take its course. Adding more heat to the fire helps nothing. ---129.89.210.19 (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Internet and Society

This short article reads like someone essay, and just sets up Internet & Society as a theoretical component of the larger field of Internet studies. ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim: Done. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Internet and Society is a description for research that isn't well classified but is on its way to becoming a recognized field. At this time discussion is anecdotal and this article is attempting to describe a thing that is not well characterized. Duncan Watts presented a paper in February of 2015 at a meeting in San Jose that he characterized as Computational Sociology and it's likely that Internet and Society will be subsumed into that. Bob Calder 19:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bob Calder. I merged Internet and Society into Internet studies, so now you can improve just this one page, which will make it easier to merge into Computational sociology, if that's what you think is best. Kindest; LeoRomero (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Internet and Society is similar to 'internet studies', equally established. Both these things are most definitely not 'Computational Sociology', that is something completely different. Jamesks

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130201203447/http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/6/1/55 to http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/6/1/55
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130201215953/http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/6/1/123 to http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/6/1/123

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)