Talk:Internet relationship

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

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in March 2012. Further details are available here.

Archives

/Archive 1 2006-2007

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Yes that section is now a lot better than it was! Well done! Invertzoo (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)EewalshReply

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

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)Reply

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)EewalshReply

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))Reply

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)Reply

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)EewalshReply

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet relationship. 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://web.archive.org/web/20120901232435/http://www.fragment.nl/mirror/Jaffe1995/ to http://www.fragment.nl/mirror/Jaffe1995/

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) 11:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 26 August 2025 and 11 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ninanesbitt726 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tomeijam (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply