The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld
Abstract
This study provided a comparative analysis of three social network sites, the open-to-all Facebook, the professionally oriented LinkedIn and the exclusive, members-only ASmallWorld.The analysis focused on the underlying structure or architecture of these sites, on the premise that it may set the tone for particular types of interaction.Through this comparative examination, four themes emerged, highlighting the private/public balance present in each social networking site, styles of self-presentation in spaces privately public and publicly private, cultivation of taste performances as a mode of sociocultural identification and organization and the formation of tight or loose social settings. Facebook emerged as the architectural equivalent of a glasshouse, with a publicly open structure, looser behavioral norms and an abundance of tools that members use to leave cues for each other. LinkedIn and ASmallWorld produced tighter spaces, which were consistent with the taste ethos of each network and offered less room for spontaneous interaction and network generation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815478 · Cited by 17,557
Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship
boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x · Cited by 16,251
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x · Cited by 9,939
Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004) · BT Technology Journal · doi:10.1023/b:bttj.0000047585.06264.cc · Cited by 1,399
Whose space? differences among users and non-users of social network sites
Hargittai, E. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00396.x · Cited by 1,286
Cited by
The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media
van Dijck, J. (2013) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970773.001.0001 · Cited by 2,688
Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications
(2010) · A Networked Self · doi:10.4324/9780203876527-8 · Cited by 1,724
How Does Brand-related User-generated Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?
Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. (2012) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.002 · Cited by 1,044
‘You have one identity’: performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn
van Dijck, J. (2013) · Media, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0163443712468605 · Cited by 925
Bossetta, M. (2018) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699018763307 · Cited by 689
Metadata
- Authors
- Papacharissi, Z.
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 199-220
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W2132222967
- Cited by
- 674
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 45.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1461444808099577
- The paper
- Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808099577
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.