Talk:Homophily

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I just deleted the links:

• Homophobia
• Homophilia
• Hemophilia

from the See Also section, as they are unrelated to this article in their meaning; linguistic parallels are not enough to garner a "See Also" cite. Elatb (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the page seems to be bare-bones and little more than definitional. Could someone with knowledge of the research done in the field expand the article? Preferably, with several section headers delineating the major subtopics associated with the term? Robert K S (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: this article has all the facts straight, but the language seriously needs editing. I am not a native speaker, so I better step back. Maybe someone could just go over it and look at some of the constructions, plus there are quite a few typos as well. But thanks for the groundwork! WernR (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To EvaXue and Yangsi: OK, then I will work on the causes of Homophily. Dlh012 (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Danchen Zhang[reply]

To YangSi and Dancheng: I will deal with the "impact of Homophily". EvaXue (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Jing Xue[reply]

Siyang26 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)SI YANG To Xue Jing and Danchen Zhang: So far, we have talked about the following parts, which might be revised, including: 1) Positive/negative impact of Homophily 2) History of study of Homophily 3) Homophily types: status homophily and value homophily 4) Relationships of Homophily: strong ties and weak ties 5) Causes of Homophily: one is structural sources: geography, family ties, organization Foci; the other is cognitive sources: taste, value and cognition 6) Homophily dissolute, reasons of certain type of homophily[reply]

From my point of view, if just choosing three most important parts to revise, I would like to select 1) positive/negative impact of Homophily, 3) Homophily types: status homophily and value homophily, and 5) Causes of Homophily: 1) structural sources: geography, family ties, organization Foci 2) cognitive sources: taste, value and cognition.

Siyang26 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)SI YANG To Danchen Zhang: It's worthwhile to study which kind of homophily will more easily die. Because it may have a real value to be studied and applied on social networks. And I think we can investigate what kind of factors result in such deaths for certain types of homophily. Was it mentioned with any causation of such deaths in the papers you referred to?[reply]

EvaXue (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Jing XUE To Si Yang and DanChen Zhang: Can we just choose two or three main aspects based on our current finding? Too much information might not necessary. How do you think? Which aspects might be most important?[reply]

EvaXue (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Jing XUE To Danchen Zhang: I like your idea. How does homophily form and dissolute. Do you have any academic papers supporting these idea?[reply]

Dlh012 (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Danchen Zhang[reply]

I find we can add a module for "the cause of homophily", mainly including geograph, family, organizational (i.e. work), same position or level, similar taste and cognition. Another part we can improve is how homophily dissolute? which kind of homophily will more easily die?

EvaXue (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Jing XUE[reply]

looking through the paper listed in this article. I find out some points we can add into this article: First, the positive/ negative impact of Homophily. Second, history of homophily study. Third, homophily types. we can read some recent articles to expand these parts.

Siyang26 (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)SI YANG Nov 10 2014[reply]

According to the paper by Miller McPherson, et. al.^[1], homophily is usually classified into two categories: status homophily and value homophily. In terms of status homophily, we can discuss it mainly from the following aspects: race and ethnicity, sex and gender, age, religion, education, occupation and social class. For value homophily, we can focus on the behavior, attitudes, abilities, beliefs and aspirations. Meanwhile, the weights of the impact of each aspects on the two types of homophily might be worthy of being discussed.

Besides, the relationships of homophily include strong ties and weak ties. More contents could be added to clarify and differentiate the two ties between these two types.

Moreover, we can complement the part of causes of homophily, which means the major sources of homophily. For structural sources, geography, family ties, organization Foci might be good starting points to discuss. Besides, we can also talk about the cognitive sources of homophily based on previous psychological research.

It might be helpful to briefly mention and describe the types and dimensions of Homophily in the intro, this could help the article feel more organized and increase understanding. Also, the intro mentioned consequences for social and economic outcomes, but there wasn’t much information about that in the article. This could be something that we could expand on to help improve the article.NLA1046 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk nothing about homophily within the context of network science at all.

At the very least, maybe it should link to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_homophily ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.32.111 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has the basics of homophily, but fails to go into any serious depth regarding the topic. I think this can be improved by adding modules like the ones mentioned in previous comments or by simply going into more depth in explaining the existing modules such as the "Cause and Effects" or "Types and Dimensions". I also think that providing diagrams or images can give visual explanations of the types of homophily. My last thought is that maybe providing more of an explanation of some of the studies that were cited could give more of an explanation or example of the topic. MDXCVII (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]