Talk:Mass communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 9 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yujun Chen (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emoore3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 23 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Justin.Sheppard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Move to Mass communication

Shouldn't this be moved to Mass communication?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Too vague

This is an incredibly vague article. There should be a definition, real-world applications, and then a description on how the field is usually studied and organized on the university level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glumbert (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 August 2006

I'll adress both of these issues later this week. I just completed a university level course on Mass communication. ~MDD4696 23:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps sometime this week heh. ~MDD4696 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

please for the benefit of the younger generation and for those still in schools studying mass communication can we all have a better article on mass communication. let the world see what a beautiful course it is.

the world has a right to know how and why the world is fast becoming a global village and if we as the gate keepers of the society can not have a good article on what we are and what we stand for , then there is a problem.
i believe there should be a better write up. with emphasis its credibility so that people can begin to appreciate the uniqueness mass communication.

m1

23 March 2008 revert

On 19 Febrary 2008 an anonymous editor removed substantial portions of the article along with sources and replaced it with apparent original research.[1] I reverted to the 17 Feb. version. Edits since 19 Feb. appear to be cleaning up after the rewrite. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe communication in general forms the basics of our everyday life. Dealing with the fact that information and ideas are transmitted through mediums such as the newspaper, radio, TV, internet and other means from a sender to a recipient to provide a sense of mutual understanding.--Supermic (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass Communication Is a Basic Part Of Progress

Progressing means updating oneself. This can only be possible through sending, sharing and receiving of information and ideas which is the major aspect of MASS COMMUNICATION. This explains clearly that without 'mass communication' life will eventually be stagnant.--Supermic (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

too vague

Agree with comment on article being too vague, and requiring major rewrite. Mass communication is far too exciting a subject not to be treated with more thoroughness. Using Richard Campbell et al. Media and Culture textbook could improve this article tremendously. Teach270 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Unclear reference

Pearce 2009? What kind of citation style is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.112.213 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

rtttttttttttt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.94.127.119 (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Great source for page

Media & Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication by Campbell, R. Martin, C. & Fabos, B. Will be a great source for this page. Will add more content when finished with the book, reading it for a class at Northwestern University (Theories of Mediated Communication).

Work from a Mass Communication undergraduate course

Hi All,

I am the professor for a Mass Communication course at a small liberal arts college.  I have done semester-long Wikipedia projects with this course in previous semesters in which students worked on their own individual pages of interest related to Communications field.  This semester I wanted to try a shortened, one-month, project since there are so many great skills that students can learn from working in Wikipedia.  Along with help from the Wikipedia Education Foundation, it was decided that my students (a class of about 18) would work on this page, Mass Communication, which has some room for improvement.

The class focused solely on a new section called “Types of mass communication”, which already had a bit of content with two sections, “Advertising”and “Journalism”.  The assignment for the students was to use our textbook Pavlik Converging Media: A New Introduction to Mass Communication and find one additional peer-reviewed source and create a sub-section under ““Types of mass communication”.  

While the project was one month, the students really only spent two weeks digging into their two sources to do research and compose their sub-sections, which were supposed to be close to one paragraph per student. Originally I had planned to have the students address some of the much needed revisions that the page needed from earlier work that had been done,  but unfortunately, we were not able to get to them.    

You can see the work, including their evaluations of the live page, that the students did on the sandbox page for our course, along with the conversation on the corresponding Talk Page with Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk), from Wiki Ed, who has been a great help!

My students did some great work and I would like for their work to get your feedback and be of help in the continual development of this page.  

I am posting a good bit of content under the new “Types of mass communication” section.  If you could, please do not just remove the content that my students worked so hard on.  It would be great to have a dialogue about the pieces that are good and those that need work and revision.

Thanks so much in advance for your feedback and help!  This has been a great learning experience for myself and the students!  

Best,

Prof.bgreg (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

My Opinions About This Article

I think that it's a good article as a draft, it just needs some improvements. I think some of the headings need to have capitalization, some of the links need to be up-to-date, and some of the links from the sources need to be workable. Some of the sources, I couldn't get into. I think that some of information with the different headings in the different types of medium have a good start to it, but it just needs more support and evidence along with it. The one question that I have: Why isn't there enough writing throughout the article? Vada.amerson (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup by an expert required

There were a lot of literary sentences and inaccurate facts in the article when I began editing, and I got rid of them till section 2.3. Still there are sections that include redundant paragraphs, such as the section about catfishes under section 2.4, which I have not removed deliberately to serve as an instance. Mass communication is not my expertise, so I find myself constrained from editing beyond rephrasing and fact-checking. We need an expert to rewrite the article. Ambuj Shukla 05:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambujshukla2004 (talk • contribs)

Article Evaluation - citations need updating

The first citations listed in the Notes part of the article are bringing up 404 errors.

Bstonezag (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you remove them? I'm thinking they should be taken down. Mejorasi723 (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Lack of Evidence

Hello! There are multiple claims mentioned in this article that are not supported by evidence. For example, you state that social media have stronger feedback models than traditional media sources, which is a valid claim. However, there is no reference that proves this point, so I'd suggest you delete this statement or find a source that proves your point.--ElmerB23 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

ओमकार

ऐचटचटचट

अएछट चटचटच टचटच चटचपट

चटचट

चट — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4042:E24:A7E7:C19:782:F6CD:8E2B (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

inconsistency

hi, I noticed that your article lacked consistency in terms of how the types of mass communication was explained. There were definitions for some terms and some that did not have definitions had links; although, audio media did not have any link attached to it. Also, you added the history of photography, which was not needed because the main focus of the article is mass communication not photography. Fathia tijani (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

My Opinions About This Article

Hello All, I think the description of mainstream journalism needs to be properly hyperlinked or referenced. The descriptions of "television" and "photography" focus too much on their development rather than their communication characteristics. I think we can drop some information and focus more on its functionality.--Yujun Chen (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)