Talk:Network effect

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

Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Business High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Marketing & Advertising High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing 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.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

The content of Network economics was merged into Network effect on 2021-05-31. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021 2022

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Someone has included multiple refeferences to 'market tipping', which seems to be a euphemism for a monopoly and is not an accepted term in economics. I have changed most of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FletcherD (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The cited part: "Besides, Negative network externalities has four characteristics, which are namely, more login retries, longer query times, longer download times and more download attempts." in the section on Negative network externalities is rather poorly connected to the surrounding text and jumps at the reader with no prior introduction or explanation. It is not clear how it supposed to support or complement the topic. I ask for consensus to tie the cited part if possible coherently together to support the text, and if not, to delete it.

The following is a part of the section which surrounds the unclear part (emphasis mine):

negative network externalities create negative feedback and exponential decay. In nature, negative network externalities are the forces that pull towards equilibrium, are responsible for stability, and represent physical limitations keeping systems bounded. Besides, Negative network externalities has four characteristics, which are namely, more login retries, longer query times, longer download times and more download attempts. Therefore, congestion occurs when the efficiency of a network decreases as more people use it, and this reduces the value to people already using it. Traffic congestion that overloads the freeway and network congestion on connections with limited bandwidth both display negative network externalities.

Kubis (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the sentence you've highlighted is jarring. I also don't see that it is supported by the reference, at least not based on the abstract I have access to. According to the reference, the counter forces are not just performance of the technology but also behavior of the (new) participants using the technology. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

There appear to have been two subsequent revisions by @Audestadj to the section that is the subject of this discussion. The edits in question are these ones: 1 2. First one clarifies the beginning of the section while removing the disputed text (and apparently attempting to place it into references?). The second edit replaces the disputed text back after the revised text at the beginning of the section without any changes.

I consider the first edit a lukewarm improvement to the section, nonetheless the main disputed text remains unclear and hanging, so for lack of time in the present to research the topic, I am going to go ahead and wrap this in a {{non sequitur}} with a link to this discussion.

Kubis (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply