Talk:Netnography

Latest comment: 2 months ago by 2804:1CD8:D841:590:D898:FC1C:BC16:3C25 in topic Netnography = Social Media Intelligence ?

Strange reference section edit

The reference section starts with "[1]. [2]. [3] [4]. [5] [6]. [7] [8] [9]". --Mortense (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

First sentence broken edit

Just passing through here, so I won't try to fix it, but the first sentence seems to be having a hard time choosing between two parallel relative clauses. 2003:46:C1A:18A0:D4C1:81BC:986:5CDB (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Merger of data from the cyber-ethnography page edit

A lot of the information on what is now the cyber-ethnography page was not representative of the field but rather representative of netnography (and openly said so). So I moved the content to this page. I didn't write it and cannot attest to its accuracy beyond my own meager knowledge of netnography. ElodieSF (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Netnography = Social Media Intelligence ? edit

Where is the difference between these two? Social media intelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.80.41 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nem sempre. A inteligência de mídia social pode ser compreendida como uma forma de realizar uma netnografia. Eu, enquanto pesquisador, posso acompanhar remotamente, através de gravação de tela, o contexto de uso de um determinado software numa rotina de trabalho de um médico. [1] 2804:1CD8:D841:590:D898:FC1C:BC16:3C25 (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Primary sources edit

The whole article seems to be a summary of one person's appraoch - it needs third party references to support the text. Without that its a candidate for deletion or reduction to a stub. The original article was created by an SPA -----Snowded TALK 09:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Neutrality concerns edit

This article seems to rely heavily on works of Robert V Kozinets. As I'm currently reading his book "Netnography: an Essential Guide to Qualitative Social Media Research" (2020), I noticed a problem that I think is of high importance: On page 15, Kozinets recommends readers to edit this article. If readers then cite only works that are in line with his book, this article may become biased. In my opinion, there should be a broader set of sources and viewpoints covered here in the future. Bave- (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply