Talk:Media ecology

message: The quote in paragraph 2 ('a technology within which a [human] culture grows.') doesn't appear at all in the article cited; I'm unable to find that quote anywhere in a simple search - it should be removed or updated with a correct citation. 78.57.195.5 (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate Quote

message: There's a numbered system we can use for all the references to be at the bottom and the individual in text cites to direct to them. Also, more facts need to be cited in order for the article to be expanded. Lotusduck 23:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference style is off 

message: Someone put a merge tag on the article suggested it be merged with media studies. Not sure if that editor is planning to actually start a discussion on the topic, but I oppose such a merger as this field (within media studies) deserves its own article for proper explication of its unique intellectual history, approach, and contributions to the study of media & culture. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if there is no positive argument from the suggester, then the merge tag should be removed as merge-spam.--Buridan 23:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Media ecology is only barely, if at all, an empirical science.  A philosophic approach to the study of media would be a much better way of describing it.PaulLev 21:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  replaced Science stub with Philo stub 

message: What about media about environment ?. This is, media mainly dedicated to environment ?. --Mac (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental media 

message: I'm checking the notes and I noticed that the number 1 does not seem to be correct. In fact, it says that the author of Perspectives on culture, technology, and communication: The media ecology tradition is T. F. Gencarelli, but here and here (for example) it say a different thing. Check, please. --.The9 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 1 

message: Hi Ryan, 
This article is very thorough! It is rich in details and references. I particularly like the History section which provides a great background on the development of the theory. If anything, I think the article might be too long. A few suggestions to make it digestible. There are a lot of large block quotes especially in the History, Critics and Recent Research sections. Having the original text is useful in some places but also can be a barrier to understanding in others. I would advocate for paraphrasing in less academic wording where possible. The Core Concepts section also seems a bit bloated. All of the content is great but the section headers seem inconsistent. It's not easy to skim that section and get a good sense of what it's about. The "EYE" and "EAR" sections are a dramatic contrast in form and lack sufficient context. This Critics section is also very long and hard to follow. This article certainly is not lacking for well researched information on this theory! I would recommend reorganizing (or at least reworking the section headers) to make it more consumable and reformatting long block quotations. Great job! Ef527 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Hey Ryan!
I ike your edits of the media ecology page; I thought that they were a great start to flush out the fundamentals of the theory as a whole. I think your picture added a nice tocuh of nuance to the page. With regards to the introduction: I feel as though some of the information in the introduction is a bit redundant. Because the intro should give you a brief snapshot of what you are planning to dive into later within the article, I would suggest making it a little more succint and condensing some of the language. For example, the phrase "the term media ecology refers to..." appears twice in the first paragraph. Instead of making two points in two seperate spaces, I would hit them a little sharper. Additionally, I find the history portion of the article to be a bit conversational. While this can be a great thing, I think that it would have more gravitas if certain language was cut out to frame it as fact rather than conjecture. I agree with Ef527's assessment of 'The Core Concepts'. All of the information there is great, however it is very difficult to get through and the transitions are a little dicey. I would also suggest (similar to the introduction) streamlining the infomation so that it is more palatable to an audience that is unfamiliar with the theory. Overall however, I think this is a great start! I would also recommend (although you can totally ignore this) adding something to the 'International Application' section based on your own areas of expertise outside of this class. All in all though, good show!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpg23 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: The term “media ecology” seems confusing for non-academic readers whose perception of “ecology” might largely be restricted within the realm of natural science. Accordingly, it would be better to clarify this term and its implication by elaborating the original definition of “ecology” and the way in which media system parallel with it. Paul Mason, a visiting lecturer of University of the West of England broke down the term into “ecology” and “media” and provided a straightforward but brilliant interpretation in one of his lectures. Ecology, as he explained, is far from being similar with the word “environment”. In ancient Greek, it means “home/household” and “the study of”. However, instead of being the study of some certain object, it indicates the study of “interconnection, relationships and the transfer of energy within complex networks of matters”. Ecology is not environment because environment means surroundings, things outside the system of the subject under discussion; while ecology doesn’t try to differentiate the subject under discussion and its surroundings. Ecology connects the subject and its surroundings, with the things in the whole system depending on each other for survival (thinking about how human beings rely on nonhuman objects like food, water etc. to survive; while the nonhuman objects are so easily influenced by human activities).
Why is the word ecology used in the realm of media? Mason explained this by emphasizing its expressive ability to describe “the massive and dynamic interrelation of processes and objects, beings and things, patterns and matter”. Media ecology focuses on “connections between actors and processes in media systems at various scales.” This also implies why media ecology theory kind of ignores the role played by content in media, and starts thinking about “other scales of system to that of content”. Since in a media ecological system, content itself can hardly exist and survive if it were not for the hardware used to produce, distribute and present it, as well as the software developed to mediate the relationship between the content and human engaging in this process (namely the producers and the consumers of the content). The choice of algorithms, words, tones, UI designs and all the other factors assisting in the presentation of the contents implant values and invisibly influence our perception of the contents. Mason mentioned the example of searching results lists online whose order are always determined by advertisement investments of different companies. This illustrates why content doesn’t always matter in media and why the media system should be evaluated as a dynamic ecology with every component engaging in an everlasting interaction.
Mason P. (2012) Media ecology-an introduction. Retrieved from:
https://mediaecologies.wordpress.com/media-ecology-an-introduction/#comments
Tianf3 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of the term "media ecology" 

message: Hello!
This semester, our class will be editing different communication theory pages. I will be editing this one- Media Ecology. I have not edited on Wikipedia before, so please be kind :) I'm open to any advice and tips!
Thanks in advance, 
Adri
Ang59 (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Editor! 

message: Hi!
So far, I have tried to edit this page for grammatical errors that were pretty extensive. I also moved a few sections around, and deleted some information that I thought was biased or unnecessary. I also rewrote the introductory paragraph and tried to define the theory in simpler terms.
What I still have left- I need to add more to the "Global Village" section under the key concepts. I also need to add another section either to the criticism or to the current research. And I have to add more sources in.  
Questions: 
1. Does the definition of media ecology make sense? 
2. Does the introduction section flow? If you only read the introduction section, do you think you have a basic understanding of Media Ecology? 
3. Do you think the section about the difference between the North American and European versions of Media Ecology fits well in the introduction? Or should it go in its own section? 
4. Initially, I was planning to add a section to the current research. However, I am now thinking of adding one to the criticism instead. Which do you think would be more beneficial to the page? Which would add more value? 
5. Does the flow of the page make sense? Is there any section you would move around? 
6. Did you notice any grammatical errors that I missed? 
Thanks you guys! Looking forward to hearing your feedback. 
Adri 
Ang59 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comm Theory- for peer reviewers 

message: Hey Adri! Below are my replies to your questions. Great job overall!
Questions:
1. Does the definition of media ecology make sense? 
Yes, I like how it starts with a broad sentence description and dives deeper into the nuances of the theory. The paragraph below in the introduction relates to media ecology, but I think it can be moved under "Background", since it gives information on its comparable brother term "media studies". Everything else is great - from the general description, to the details of the theory and key players in its conception. 
Media ecology is a contested term within media studies for it has different meanings in European and North American contexts. The North American definition refers to an interdisciplinary field of media theory and media design involving the study of media environments.[8] The European version of media ecology is a materialist investigation of media systems as complex dynamic systems.[9] In Russia, a similar theory was independently developed by Yuri Rozhdestvensky. In more than five monographs, Rozhdestvensky outlined the systematic changes which take place in society each time new communication media are introduced, and connected these changes to the challenges in politics, philosophy and education.[10] He is a founder of the vibrant school of ecology of culture.[11]
The European version of media ecology rejects the North American notion that ecology means environment. Ecology in this context is used "because it is one of the most expressive [terms] language currently has to indicate the massive and dynamic interrelation of processes and objects, beings and things, patterns and matter".[12] Following theorists such as Felix Guattari, Gregory Bateson, and Manuel De Landa, the European version of media ecology (as practiced by authors such as Matthew Fuller and Jussi Parikka) presents a post-structuralist political perspective on media as complex dynamical systems.
2. Does the introduction section flow? If you only read the introduction section, do you think you have a basic understanding of Media Ecology? 
Certainly! I think intro sections' goals are to do just that: allow the reader a basic understanding of the subject, and I certainly get that from this intro. I can look lower down on the page to link back to terms and key points of the theory. 
3. Do you think the section about the difference between the North American and European versions of Media Ecology fits well in the introduction? Or should it go in its own section? 
You read my mind! As above, I suggested it go into the "Background" section. You can try it out, but a new section might not be needed if you can work it into an existing section. 
4. Initially, I was planning to add a section to the current research. However, I am now thinking of adding one to the criticism instead. Which do you think would be more beneficial to the page? Which would add more value? 
It depends - is a major criticism missing? If so, definitely add to the criticism. If not, I think current research is always beneficial to people to be able to relate the theory in real life. I learn by example, so reading about a study conducted helps me gain a better understanding of topics. Just in my opinion, but not sure what others think!
5. Does the flow of the page make sense? Is there any section you would move around? 
I love the flow - it's super clear: Intro, Background, Core Concepts, Criticism and Recent Research and applications. It's very easy to follow. 
6. Did you notice any grammatical errors that I missed?
Only one!  Below is the grammatical change bolded!
- In the "Introduction" section
"McLuhan proposed that media influences the progression of society, and that significant periods of time and growth can be categorized by the rise of a specific technology during that period."
-Katherine, kc1015  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc1015 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Katherine Chow 

message: Hi Adri! Great job! My overall feeling is that this page has a strong structure and proper length. The ideas have been expressed well. It is a little overwhelming to me when I scroll down to the “Criticism” and the parts below as they are basically words without visualization.
To answer your questions: 1) The definition totally makes sense to me. I get the main ideas behind the term right after I read it. 2) If I were you, I might mention some “core concepts” in the lead section as well, such as the assumptions and “The medium is the message”, since you have already mentioned “hot vs. cool media” and “laws of media” in your leading section. 3) According to Ian that "the lead section is a summary of the major points of the article”, I think you could move the "North American and European versions of Media Ecology” part somewhere else (maybe “Background”) or make it shorter in the leading section as it’s not that important. 4) As for the preference between recent research and criticism, I think it depends on the content that you want to add. If it’s an expansion of the theory or a research based on the theory, it might fit in “recent research”. If it’s mainly about the disagreement with the theory or the theorists, it can be added to “Criticism”. As for me, I might look forward to reading more recent research and applications. 5) The structure is strong, I might want to move the “Criticism” section to the bottom as our textbook does. 6) You might want to change single quotation marks of "The medium is the message" to double quotation marks.
Other suggestions that might help: 1) You could add more pictures to increase the readability. Based on my experience, it’s not difficult to find some pictures to put in “Application” section; 2) You may add more content to “Education” section as the other two sections under “Recent research and applications” are well developed in length; 3) To make it more unified, you may change the name of the subtitles under “Recent research and applications” section to “Application in new media”, “Application in education” and “Application in social media”; 4) You could merge the "notes" with the other three references.
Hope my feedback could help you with further editing! Congratulations again!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuentinValentino (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review From Moruomi 

message: Adri, 
I found the very small edits that you made in your page made a big difference. I think the structure of the page is as important as the content itself. Therefore, good job in starting with correcting grammatical errors, moving sections around, and deleting unnecessary information. The definition of media ecology makes a lot of sense. I found the portion very appropriate and the hyperlinks were chosen perfectly in this section. What I found good about the introduction section is how easy it is for nonacademic readers to read and understand, it is not complicated.
I like the background section, I always like to read more about founders and the history behind what I am reading. However, I am wondering if you agree with me that the three founders should be under a sub-title under ‘Background’, because the bold titles under ‘Background’ are not necessary related. Or as you suggested, maybe it will be better to separate the ‘North America and Europe versions’ section from the background section. But overall, I do have a good understanding of the theory by reading the introduction section. 
I honestly do not think that you should add more information in the criticism section, it is already a long section. Also, I do not think you should add new sections unless they will add a value to the page and include new information. There are already good number of sections in you page, you can add more information or examples to some of them if you found good resources to use. In general, I think important areas of the theory are included, and the flow of information and sections is good. 
--Nha33 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Noura 

message: Hi Adri: it's obvious that you've got a plan. First of all, the introduction is good. It contains all the necessary information I would need if I wanna some quick facts about the theory. "In other words" do provide another paraphrase that's more intuitive. For the North American and European versions of the theory, I do think it's worth considering to divide them into two independent part. And I suggest you to make more comparison on the entry to make them look more interrelated. Plus, McLuhan's media history os the part that I felt a little overwhelming. Probably we could make it more brief and clear. As for the grammar, I guess you have spent a lot time on it and so far I didn't see any of them. Cheers!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yj122 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Jiang Yang 

message: Hi, Adri! I am glad to help you answer your concerns and questions about the page.
The followings are my suggestions:
1. Does the definition of media ecology make sense?
I think the definition of media ecology is clear and concise. I like the explicit and digestible way that explains the definition of ecology. However, I think it is better to summarize the direct quote "Media ecology looks into the matter……ways of thinking, feeling and behaving" in your own words. The introduction part should avoid long quotation since it is a summary of main arguments of the theory. 
2. Does the introduction section flow? If you only read the introduction section, do you think you have a basic understanding of Media Ecology?
The flow introduction allows me acquire basic understanding of media ecology well. But I am a little confused when I read the word "tetrad". Can you try to change another way to explain the "tetrad laws of media". For instance, "the tetrad includes four factors that…."
3. Do you think the section about the difference between the North American and European versions of Media Ecology fits well in the introduction? Or should it go in its own section? 
I think it is good for the part of "North American and European version" goes in its own section. The section describes the different interpretation of media ecology under different cultural background. It is enough that the introduction part shows the agreed version of media ecology's definition among academic field.
4. Initially, I was planning to add a section to the current research. However, I am now thinking of adding one to the criticism instead. Which do you think would be more beneficial to the page? Which would add more value? 
In my opinion, both sections you want to add are valuable for the page. It is better for me to follow the structure of the page if you put the criticism section after the recent research and application section. But if you want me to choose only one of them, I will choose to add a section to the current research. It only has three categories. Is there any other fields besides media and education that can apply the media ecology theory?
5. Does the flow of the page make sense? Is there any section you would move around? 
The flow of the page is wonderful for me. But I think the technological determinism part in criticism is a little long and wordy for me to follow. It would be great if you add the original citation of McLuhan's opinion (McLuhan saw changes in the dominant medium of communication as the main determinant of major changes in society, culture, and the individual) which is summarized by Michael Zimmer.
6. Did you notice any grammatical errors that I missed?
I have not found any grammatical errors so far. I think you did a great job on that.
I look forward to your final work. I think your contributions will be very useful and valuable for the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aw1014 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review from Ai-Ling 

message: Hey! It seems like there is a lot of good information in this introduction, but it is a little dense. The discussions about the historical dimension and the ecology dimension should maybe be divided up into paragraphs on their own instead of incorporated multiple times in different paragraphs. The information itself is not repetitive, but it could be streamlined a little so that each paragraph addresses one of the components of media ecology, instead of multiple, if that makes sense. All the important people seem to be there, and otherwise it looks good!CollEKim (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test Peer Review-In Class Assignment 

message: Hey Leo! I could not find your goals for this page neither on Canvas nor on the talk page, so I am just going to give you some general recommendations. My first impression of the page is that there are way too much information piled on this page that could be organized better. I noticed that you have made edits on introduction and criticism sections. Great work! 
For introduction, it would be more clear for readers if you could move some of the scholarly view on the theory into the background section to shorten the introduction, so that it would cut to the chase. Personally, I think that a short and sweet opening paragraph with a few sentence on the definition of the theory is more efficient. I understand that some of your introduction paragraphs have assumptions on the theory, you could combine those with the subsection on assumption in your core concepts into a separate section named assumptions of the theory. 
Core concepts is definitely a very dense part of your page and I think we could do some reorganizing to make it easier on the readers. McLuhan's media history seems to be covering some of backbones on the theory, which I think you could move that entire part into an assumptions section. So with the 3 assumptions on the theory, scholarly views on the formation of the theory from the introduction paragraph and McLuhan's media history can make a solid stand alone assumption section. In that case, your content would look something like: Background, Assumption and History, Core concept, Criticism and Recent research and applications. 
For your Criticism section, it could be helpful to shorten some of the sections, since it is a bit overloaded with dense information at this point. I understand you are working on the section, so keep going with the good work. Overall, I think it would be nice if you can shorten some of the sections. Detail is nice, but when it is too much details, then we may lose reader's attention easily. Your theory looks very interesting and I know there are a lot of works needed on this page, so BEST OF LUCK! Keep up the good works!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentinaaaaal (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Valentina 

message: Hey, Leo
I am not assigned to peer review your page, but since the assignment calls for us to look at/edit 2 other pages besides those assigned, I wanted to take a crack at one of my favorite comm theories. 
I specifically want to talk about adding sources to the "the medium is not the message" section. I notice that his critics, other than Eco, are not really defined. There are a lot of scholars that do not agree with McLuhan.
Some helpful sources might be:
The Five Myths of Television Power, Or, Why the Medium is Not the Message
The medium can obscure the message: Young children's understanding of video: http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/deloache/The%20Medium%20Can%20Obscure%20the%20Messege%20(1998).pdf
This is a big page with a lot of info, good luck!
--Kekile (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Thoughts from MC 

message: Hi Leo! I really enjoy reading this whole page, particularly your newest contributions to the introductory part and core concepts. Although I haven’t leaned about the theory, this page has already helped me build a big map about Media Ecology Theory in my mind. The introductory part is well-structured after you removed repeated content. Undoubtedly the introduction contains a lot of information, but it seems very digestible for new readers by separating information into multiple paragraphs. My only suggestion about the introductory part is to paraphrase the three-line long direct citation in the third paragraph in order to make it shorter but more understandable. In terms of the connection to General Systems Theory that you added in the Core Concepts section, I feel that it is a little disconnected as core concepts. It seems to be more related to the extensions/connections to other theories. So I think it would be better to move it to other sections. Nevertheless, the content of this sub-section is easy to read with the hyperlink you created for the General System. The section of Global village and Technological determinism you worked on are really interesting. Please check tiny spelling mistakes and the uses of quotation marks in these sections. Other than your current contributions, I have one more suggestion for this page. Since the assumptions of the theory are grouped into the Core concepts section, is it suitable to move this part to other sections, or probably create a new section named “Assumptions”? Happy further editing! Rubyrener (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Jiaying 

message: Media Ecology Theory’s webpage is filled with a lot of text and currently feels overwhelming. In order to make the page more user-friendly, consider the below changes:
Shortening the Opening Paragraph: Limit the information to the opening paragraph to the who, what, when and where basic information and let the reader decide if they want to continue reading below for additional information.
Background Information: I am not sure that this much background information is needed to understand the theory. In an effort to rid the page of som much text, consider removing some of the information relating to background information.
Shortening Information in General: Think about sections you could cut down without losing the essence of the content. Because Media Ecology Theory is not a hot topic, my thought is that readers are coming to this Wiki page to get a brief overview of the theory, not a ton of information to sift through. 
Graphics: While the page has one picture and one graphic, it still feels very text heavy. As you scroll the page, you feel overwhelmed by the amount of text and there is no graphics to engage readers. Consider adding a flow chart or a graphic that illustrates the theory at play. For example, a graphic could be used to illustrate the four periods of history to eliminate the heavy text. 
Recent Research and Applications Section: Because social media is widely known specifically the platforms explained in this section, there is no need to explain what Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram is. Simply link to them if the reader wants more information. Additionally, consider splitting this section up as it was confusing to read about the applications of the MET and then read within the same section about its research.
Restructuring Information: Currently, criticism relating to Media Ecology Theory comes after core concepts and before recent research and applications. I would suggest not highlight criticisms about the theory until you have given the research and application of the theory. Criticism is ideally the last section you read as readers can fully weigh the critiques after having been fully educated on the theory and its application.--WMMaddox (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall 2018 Communication Theory and Frameworks Course Peer Review 

message: I think this wiki page is full of detailed and rich information, and it’s well organized into different sections. I think it’s nice to have all the information and quotations in the sections, but it would be nicer to further break down the big block of words into short sentences. Or just reframe and summarize the quotations into shorter parts, and add more explanations of the quotations. In doing so, readers from different background and age would pay more attention on the information they need from this page rather than getting lost in the pile of words.
I also think that it would be better to have more examples and visuals to be added on the page to better explanation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annnnayu (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCTP Anna Yu review  

message: I added information about Walter Ong's important book, Orality and Literacy, which relates to his theory of media ecology. I created a new citation for this as well. Grace raper (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding Walter Ong section 

message: 1) I linked to Walter J. Ong's own Wiki page.
2) Linked to Buckminster Fuller's own Wiki page.
3) I linked the modality section to the Modality (semiotics) page to better clarify what this paragraph was trying to explain.
4) Linked to the Iranian Revolution page under the case studies section, for ease of comparison with the already linked Egyptian revolution of 2011.
5) I also linked to Post-structuralism within the 'North American, European and Eurasian versions' header.
Grace raper (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  4/28 edits 

message: Czitrom, D.J. (1983). Media and the American mind: From Morse to McLuan. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Innis, H.A. (1951), The bias of communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication (J. Bednarz, Jr., Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lum, C. M. K, (Ed.). (2006). Perspectives on culture, technology, and communication: The media ecology tradition. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the message: An inventory of effects. Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press.
Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Postman, N. (2000). The Humanism of media ecology. Proceedings of the Media Ecology Association 1 (pp.10-16).
Strate. L. (2006). Echoes and reflections: On media ecology as a field of study. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Sandcastle365 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Ecology Supplemental Resources 

message: Added picture of Walter OngSandcastle365 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  COML Class Assignment Edits 

message: This wiki page is very organized and provides us with a well-informed overview of Media Ecology. I specifically appreciate the digestibility of this article as it is organized into clear and concise sections which make it easier to process and navigate the content. In the age of new media (digital media) I would like to see more content/case studies attributed to social media at its current state. I think this would help the article remain up to date and also add information for younger generations that spend more time involved in social media as a form of new media.-- Cjsaez (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  COML Feedback 

message: — Assignment last updated by Trolleyman32 (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory

message: I removed a huge amount of text that simply provided (a) unsourced discussion of how the theory has been applied in various contenxts, and (b) a random set of publications that happen to use the theory. If there are notable applications or cases, then we need reliable third-party sources indicating those applications are notable. Wikipedia isn't a handbook for the theory. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Application/Case Studies