Talk:Social media analytics

"FBCLID" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect FBCLID has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § FBCLID until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"Fbclid" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fbclid has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Fbclid until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

COI edit request: inferential limitations of social media analytics

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: I am Alex-George Adam, the author of the preprint cited below. I am not editing the article directly and am requesting an independent assessment of this proposed addition.

Proposed location: At the end of the Data analysis subsection, immediately before Information interpretation.

Proposed text:

Aggregation and normalization can preserve accurate descriptive outputs, such as volumes, sentiment shares, or growth rates, while removing relational information—including timing structure, content lineage, dependency, and propagation order—needed to distinguish competing explanations of collective behavior. A 2026 preprint termed this problem “mechanism-attribution loss” and proposed that the provenance retained by an analytical pipeline should depend on the type of claim the output is intended to support.

Rationale: The article currently explains how social-media data are transformed into analytical outputs but provides little discussion of whether processing can remove information required for particular inferences. The proposed wording is explicitly attributed and identifies the source as a preprint rather than presenting the concept as established consensus. I welcome independent assessment under WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:PRIMARY.

Thank you. Alex-George Adam (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Alex-George Adam (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Not done: The changes are not supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Per WP:PREPRINT your source is not a reliable source Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

References

This article is in the wrong perspective in the Data analysis section

I was recommended to revise the tone of a a part of the Data analysis section of this article. I began to read from the beginning of the section I was to revise tone of. The majority of the section is set in the wrong perspective and subject for example "The data analysis step begins once we know what problem we want to solve and know that we have sufficient data that is enough to generate a meaningful result. How can we know if we have enough evidence to warrant a conclusion? The answer to this question is: we don't know. We can't know this unless we start analyzing the data. While analyzing if we found the data isn't sufficient, reiterate the first phase and modify the question. If the data is believed to be sufficient for analysis, we need to build a data model" I believe that the usage of 'we' as the subject should only be in quotations. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and don't yet feel ready to edit the entire section. I am also unsure in my complaint I have about the article, but I believe this to be a major issue for the article. RezZhalo (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2026 (UTC)