Talk:Online dating#Merge proposal

[https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/MF-Risk-of-online-weddings-v6.pdf Relative Strangers, Harry Benson 2021]

{{Ping|CommonKnowledgeCreator}} favors the inclusion of this source in the article, but I think it's sketchy. The author has published it through the Marriage Foundation, an marriage counseling company [https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/help-and-support/a-personal-letter-from-harry-benson-for-people-with-marriage-difficulties/ that he is employed by.]

CommonKnowledgeCreator says that this is OK because Savanta Comres is the source of the polling data in the article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1229413753 Edit summary here.]

However, Benson is the one who has made the interpretive analysis of the data, and I have no reason to believe his analysis was subject to any kind of peer review, being published by his own employer, a marriage counseling company. I also can't find evidence that Harry Benson has any expertise in data analysis.

From this vantage point, it looks like an unreliable source. Your thoughts? Amaebi-uni (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

:First, according to his [https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/team-members/ Marriage Foundation website profile], Benson is a doctoral student in social policy at the University of Bristol School for Policy Studies. If true, he probably has some education in statistics. More importantly, it is unclear to me why this article's references would or should require publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal since the subject is not an academic, medical, or scientific topic but is a consumer product. The Pew Research Center and Consumer Reports surveys cited in the article are not subject to peer review and release the results of the surveys they conduct on their own websites, just like most polling and survey organizations do. Per WP:SPS, the references in question are not blog or social media posts and self-published sources can be considered reliable when they are produced by subject-matter experts who have worked in the relevant field. Provided that surveys are done with representative sampling and conducted by professional survey organizations, it is unclear why such surveys would need to be peer reviewed for them to be included in related Wikipedia articles.

:To argue that they shouldn't would be like saying that election polls {{strikethrough|polling data}} should not be included in Wikipedia articles about elections because the polls are not peer reviewed and published on the polling organization's website, or that a government census {{strikethrough|data}} should not be included in Wikipedia articles about a country's demographics because the government census agency's surveys are not peer reviewed and are published on the government census agency's website. Pew and CR are professional survey organizations and Savanta ComRes is a professional market research and consulting firm. The Pew and CR references cited as far as I can tell at least meet the WP:SPS standard since they are doing nothing other than surveys with representative sampling and are not experimental studies of some kind. While Benson may not have a PhD, many polls and analysis of them are conducted by people who only have a master's degree. Also, the [https://savanta.com/knowledge-centre/poll/marriage-foundation-poll-november-2021/ full results of the poll] are also available on Savanta's website if there are questions about the survey data itself. As far as I can tell, the data cited in Benson's analysis do not appear to deviate from the poll results. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

:{{Strikethrough|Also [https://themarriagefoundation.org/about/ per its website]}} Per [https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/about-us/ its website], the Marriage Foundation is a {{strikethrough|non-profit 501(c)(3) organization}} registered charity in England and Wales rather than a for-profit company, as opposed to eHarmony, which was also founded by a marriage counselor. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

::{{tq2|First, according to his [https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/team-members/ Marriage Foundation website profile], Benson is a doctoral student in social policy at the University of Bristol School for Policy Studies. If true, he probably has some education in statistics.}}

::{{ping|CommonKnowledgeCreator}}This is highly speculatory, but even if it were true, it would still fail WP:EXPERTSPS, which says:

::Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[g]

::Possibly having done a class on statistics does not make one an 'expert' in this field. Using Goolge Scholar, I am unable to find evidence that Benson has ever published anything on this field through an independent, reliable source. Most of what he has written consists of self-help books published in Lion Hudson.

::Lastly, this is not the same thing as election polling results, when released by a reputable publisher, such as Pew Research Center. What we are talking about here is a self-published analysis of data, by Harry Benson.

::Wikipedia would not want someone like Dr. Phil's analysis of U.S. election data, published through his own website, which is closely approximate to what this is. Wikipedia always gives priority to high quality secondary sources, while discouraging SPS, including for seemingly mundane topics like video games and movies. Amaebi-uni (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

:::{{tq|Wikipedia would not want someone like Dr. Phil's analysis of U.S. election data, published through his own website which is closely approximate to what this is.}} I think this is an inaccurate analogy to Benson's analysis (since Benson supposedly is a doctoral student in a related field). However, considering that Benson has not published anything in a related field, then fine. It can be removed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

:::In light of this discussion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&oldid=1231175450 I've now added] a summary of {{strikethrough|8}} 9 studies I found using Google Scholar on associations between online dating, internet access, or mobile phone access and divorce or marriage quality. I searched for meta-analyses but did not find any. This doesn't appear to be as extensively researched of a topic as associations between digital media use and various mental health disorders and other human factors issues. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

::::{{ping|CommonKnowledgeCreator}} Your recent contribution was overall quite excellent. Thanks for taking the time to cite these works. Amaebi-uni (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• So an agreement has been made? -- Otr500 (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• :I believe so. If Amaebi-uni does not feel that Benson qualifies as a subject-matter expert under existing policy and guidelines, we can leave my summary of Benson's work out. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• ::Yes, sorry for not being more clear, I thought CKC's edit resolved the dispute just fine. Amaebi-uni (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Online dating|answered=yes}}

Section: Trends

Suggested Addition:

Recent studies have highlighted concerns regarding perceived algorithmic harms in online dating platforms. Users perceive that these algorithms may prioritize engagement metrics over facilitating meaningful connections, potentially leading to reduced self-esteem and marginalization of certain groups. {{cite web |url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3689710}}Mhlaz (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is citespam, as you've been inserting it in various articles across the encylopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

I propose merging Dating app into Online dating. Much of the content in this article is in the context of dating apps so it makes sense for that information to be in the same place. Likewise, the Dating App page is missing a lot of the research about the effect of dating apps that this page has. Hardy1729 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Grayfell

:@CommonKnowledgeCreator Hardy1729 (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping| Grayfell| CommonKnowledgeCreator }} Hardy1729 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Hardy1729, starting the discussion is the correct first step, but you also need to tag the associated articles so more editors see the proposal. See step #2 at Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merge. Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Hardy1729}} This is how you ping people. Please check your code. Nerd271 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose a simple merger; these are two distinct topics and while there is overlap they are sufficiently distinct and should be covered separately. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :@ZimZalaBim, could you expand on how you see them as distinct? As I understand them, dating apps simply repackage the same functionality available on their websites but in a form more suited for mobile use. What am I overlooking? Schazjmd (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::What you are describing might be true, but a "dating website" is not the full universe of "online dating". I'd argue that an article on "online dating" is about a phenomenon/activity, and "dating app" would be an article about a particular tool (but not the only means) used for online dating. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I think this is true in the abstract, but the vast majority of the sources for the online dating article are about dating apps. Hardy1729 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think there might be a recency/FUTON bias in the article's sources, so this doesn't necessarily reflect the topic itself. Online dating predates the consumer internet by a decade, and the concept of an 'app' by two decades. Dating via BBS, Fidonet, etc. has been documented and is of interest to social scientists. I glance at Google Scholar shows that BBS dating seems to have been particularly significant in China. Among English sources, the Internet obviously changed everything, but that, also predates 'apps' by a decade, and there is a robust literature about the social aspects of this which predate the shift to apps. The specific form the technology takes seems like a separate issue to me, but of course it's understandable that editors would work with what's at hand. Grayfell (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Conditional Support per WP:MERGEREASON and WP:SIZERULE. I think there is sufficient overlap between these articles to justify a merger provided there is some minimal trimming since the current word count for the Online dating article is 6,539 words and for the Dating app article is 1,968 words. While the articles appear to both satisfy the requirements of WP:N, I do not see the topics as being sufficiently distinct to warrant separate articles on their own per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NOTDICT. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)