Talk:Filter bubble/Archive 1

Archive 1

floated article

Saw this term in the media; it clicked with me; not sure how common it is but perhaps it should be in Wikipedia. See, I'd be able to tell this better if I wasn't in such a filter bubble. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

href for Reference #3 is broken

Maybe it's supposed to point here http://www.cnn.com/videos/tech/2011/11/01/exp-what-the-internet-is-hiding-from-you.cnn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrothgarvonmt (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks,  Done.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"hotel California effect"

Berners lee never used the phrase "hotel California effect" in that Guardian piece. It's a really bad metaphor. If someone can explain it, then do so & you can put it back in. I get what orig author means, but c'mon. Could we put "some dance to remember, some dance to forget" in it's place? Tangy 303 Mamet Sauce (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A different effect?

Here is my experience: While voting "delete" during AfD I did due diligence search for a bunch of pornstars... Imagine my embarrassment when my wife used my laptop and top results of her searches were pornsites!

This is not exactly a "filter bubble" effect; rather "down your throat effect". Is this covered anywhere? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

COM 220 Wikipedia Article Critique Megan O'Gara

I thought that the information presented in the article was relevant to the topic about filter bubbles and I didn’t find myself being distracted by any of the information. In the Editing Wikipedia brochure, there’s a section on how to write your Wikipedia article and it mentions how you are not allowed to copy information onto Wikipedia even if you cite it. In this article, the writer directly quotes Eli Pariser and although the quotes are cited, Wikipedia stresses the importance of putting all content into your own words. When talking about the example that Pariser provides in which his friends search the same thing but end up with different results, the wording in the Wikipedia article is pretty similar to the wording he uses on the website. I would also suggest writing about “Filter Bubbles” based on information from numerous sources. It seems as if a majority of the information in this particular article comes mostly from Eli Pariser but if additional sources were used, it would strengthen the work as a whole and make it more reliable. Because Eli Pariser’s work is incorporated heavily throughout the article, it doesn’t make the stance as neutral as it could be. When mostly relying on one person’s work, it makes the article appear heavily biased towards Pariser’s particular position instead of offering other viewpoints in a balanced way throughout the article. In this way, Eli Pariser’s viewpoints are overrepresented while any others are significantly underrepresented. In the “Reactions” section of the article, the author talks about how “one report was that Google has collected ‘10 years worth’ of information amassed from varying sources, such as Gmail, Google Maps, and other services besides its search engine” but doesn’t specifically mention what that report is. For readers, it would be best cite this report and the “contrary report” in the sentence that way they don’t have to go to the “Resources” section to fact check the information and again will also contribute to the reliability of the information. It could be incorporated into the statement by saying “one report by Doug Gross.” Because the article ends with mentioning how the Washington Post and New York Times want to make their own individual filtering methods, the writer could do more research on this topic to see if any progress has been made. They could add whatever information they found into the article by talking about whether or not these efforts have been achieved, turned down, or if they’re still in the process or haven’t made any efforts at all. This would let the reader know what the current status and most up-to-date information is of the information that was previously provided in the article. The source that follows the sentence in the “Reactions” sentence which talks about Doug Gross saying these filters might actually help people may have been placed incorrectly. When I clicked on the source, it brought me to an interview on CNN with Randi Kaye and Eli Pariser and doesn’t mention anything that refers to the sentence about Doug Gross and ordering pizza. Also, the idea about “shutting off personalization features on Google” was taken from a blog which is not a neutral source. Most of the sources relate back to Eric Pariser’s work, so the same information is being offered but just through a different source, so this article somewhat lacks a variety of reliable sources. There are, however, some ideas that are cited which come from reliable research abstracts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogara01 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

To a certain extent, everything in the article was relevant to the article topic. However, the “Filter Bubble” topic is very broad and can cover a wide array of information. One particular item in the article distracted me from the overall topic. The authors of the article repeatedly referred to Eli Pariser and his book, “The Filter Bubble.” While Pariser seems to be an expert on the filter bubble topic, the article talks about Pariser’s theories and opinions more than it introduces the readers to other sources of information about the topic. Furthermore, because Pariser’s theories are referenced so frequently, it is evident which side Pariser is biased towards, which impacts the neutrality of the article. I felt that this was a significant part of the article that detracted from the article’s overall content. --Mcoop23 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the reason for the numerous referrals to Pariser is that he was the person who coined the term, and who wrote the Filter Bubble book, so it seems only natural to give him some weight in this article. If there are other reliable sources discussing the term, please, let's add them, remembering to reference what is added, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a great suggestion. I hope to find additional reliable sources that also discuss the "Filter Bubble" topic. While this is a relatively new social media topic, any further discussions will add credibility to the article and give it more substance. I also believe that reducing the discussion of Pariser's theories will reduce the bias present as well. Thanks!--Mcoop23 (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well Emory be prepared to deal with folks here from a better college who will be watching over your shoulder with a look of skeptical bemusement. Regarding hunting, try copy-pasting this into your search bar...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"filter bubble" (site:nytimes.com OR site:usatoday.com OR site:time.com OR site:wsj.com OR site:washingtonpost.com OR site:nj.com OR site:npr.org OR site:csmonitor.com OR site:bloomberg.com OR site:cnn.com OR site:slate.com OR site:politico.com)

"filter bubble" (site:si.com OR site:nationalgeographic.com OR site:people.com OR site:cosmopolitan.com OR site:oprah.com OR site:smithsonian.com OR site:usmagazine.com OR site:instyle.com OR site:seventeen.com OR site:rollingstone.com OR site:ebony.com OR site:playboy.com OR site:theatlantic.com OR site:slate.com OR site:harpers.org OR site:vanityfair.com)

I bet a good angle will be news coverage from the most recent "election" for POTUS in which you probably didn't vote.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @Tomwsulcer: This seems needlessly rude. I don't know what aspersions about Emory or your comments about the age of other editors has to do with the content of this article. Nor do I think those comments help the discussion. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure the comments are helpful, @Adam (Wiki Ed): -- the search strings, the link to reliable sources, and yes the mild admonishments to curb the arrogance ("which impacts the neutrality of the article ... detracted from the article’s overall content"). The point is, Wikipedia too is a school, like boot camp for knowledge buffs, and it might be a good lesson for your students to learn, particularly from grumpy older Wikipedians who are unhappy with the recent election.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not helpful to talk about contributors rather than content. You've been here long enough to know that. And as helpful as suggesting search terms are, what was the benefit for saying "the most recent "election" for POTUS in which you probably didn't vote" except to indicate that you think the other editor is young? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The benefit is helping the younger generation get up to speed -- in Wikipedia, in things like elections, in life -- maybe you prefer to hold their hand and make like the world is rosy and nice, and give them ribbons for writing stuff like what was written above; maybe you're an easy grader? Me, I'm a tougher grader. And guess what -- they'll learn much more from me, faster, better.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Critique

After reading the Wikipedia article about the Filter Bubble, I looked at a few citations to make sure the links worked and that there was no close paraphrasing or plagiarism. Specifically I looked at reference 11, reference 4, and reference 44. Each was a reliable source (News article or interview) in which the information had been taken and rewritten in the author's own words. If direct wording had been taken, quotations were used and the author acknowledged the speaker of the quote. The three references I looked at were from the years 2010, 2016 and 2017 respectively so that they contributors of this article have kept up to date with their sourcing and information. Pertaining to the question posed about any information that was not relevant to the article or any information that distracted me while reading there was one area that really stuck out to me as being unnecessary. I found some information that was irrelevant was in the last paragraph of the reactions section where it was mentioned that the Swiss radio station SRF voted the term Filterblase, which is filter bubble in German, word of the year in 2016. This statement, other than proving the fact that this phenomenon is in effect in other countries, did not relate to the other content of this section and did not contribute any meaning to the article as a whole. Lastly, something I noticed while reading the article was that there were many occurrences where the British spelling (personalise) of the word personalize was used. I was distracted by the fact that these two spellings were both used interchangeably with in the article.--Stuckerr0711 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

??? Filterblase being "word of the year" is relevant in the sense that it shows that the filter bubble phenomenon is in the public consciousness in Germany, an important western-style democracy. That is, the article is not just about what the term means, but about it's position in political discourse; your point about the placement of that sentence may be valid; remember, that many Wikipedia contributors add to articles one fact (or factoid) at a time, and articles often become a disjointed jumble of facts in a helter-skelter pattern. Many contributors prefer British English with spellings such as colour instead of color, or prefer the date-first format (eg 3 March 2017) and they'll change formats accordingly; for me, my position is that as long as I can understand what is being said, that I don't care, and that this seems to me a mindless battle. About your critique: I think an underlying issue unaddressed in this article is as follows: is there an innate human tendency to want to see/hear/learn information that is consistent with their already-held views? if that is the case, then isn't the filter bubble concept merely a rehashing of this idea, but in the context of online digital communication? Or, does the Internet (with its powerful social media platforms) exacerbate this tendency? That is, how much of the blame can go to sites like Google or Facebook? For me, this is a tough issue that the article needs to address. Does anybody have any thinking about this? Another issue for me is that there seems to be a discrepancy: when the journalists, reacting to the Pariser book, did experiments on their own, comparing results from their browser searches, they found there wasn't much of an effect, that is, their friends got pretty much the same results as they did. So, what is going on? Clearly, there is something going on -- maybe it is a result of (or cause of?) extreme political polarization in the US today, with two competing worldviews, with each side claiming (and believing!) the other side's news is "fake news". Another critique of the article: the images -- Pariser photo should be cropped; the bubbles in the diagram are not see-through; images generally suck. Anybody there better at graphics?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Another interesting tidbit: look how pageviews to this article increased after the November 2016 election. It suggests that journalists and others are trying to explain the hard-to-explain November 2016 US election by bringing in concepts like filter bubble.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Another thing: that sidebar -- Misinformation and Disinformation. Does the filter bubble belong in that sidebar?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Critiques

When I was checking the references, the links were working correctly and lead to the correct sources. Some things to note more specifically is that near the picture of ELi Pariser next to the 'Concept' section, the caption for that image is missing a period at the end. Another part of the article I would like to share my thoughts on is the final section, 'In practice.' One thing for sure that should be changed is that the 'practice' should be capitalized in order to be consistent with the capitalization trends in the previous section titles. On the topic of this section, I think it may be a good section to have and can be useful to the readers who want to start to get an understanding of a filter bubble and what it is. However, only one example has been cited so far, so it would definitely be useful to have more. Mekompsie (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Critique

I tend to agree that the reliance on Pariser's work lends bias to the article; however, I understand that until more scholarly work is completed, there will be little other sources to complement Pariser's evidence. Reading the article as an outsider to the topic, I was somewhat confused by the out-of-context appeal to Pariser's knowledge before the Concept section, where his impact was actually discussed. I think that the Concept section too could have had a note that Pariser's work would be biased in one direction, as there was so much information presented there. I was a little troubled with the opening to the third paragraph of the Concept section, "Pariser’s idea of the ‘filter bubble’ was popularized after the Ted Talk he gave in May of 2011." The citation that followed was to the Ted Talk itself, and not to any source that indicated that use of the term "filter bubble" increased following his Ted Talk. The fourth paragraph too was troubling; it was largely made up of direct quotations, which seems lazy at best. I'm also not sure what the section about Obama's speech was doing there. I think it lends more political bias even than the reliance on Pariser's work. I thought the Reactions section helped to offset some of the bias of the Concept section, but in my view, it was too little too late. The very end of the Reactions section introduced two concepts that seemed to want elaboration (designers counteracting effects of filter bubbles and SRF voting filterblase as a word of the year in 2016"). These two concepts are not at all related, and yet they were in the same paragraph, which seemed unprofessional at best. The In Practice section wants more research, but I have nothing further to critique from this article. Thompshe4541 (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

New Section to be Added

I will be adding a section soon that I have been working on that gathers and summarizes many of the ethical considerations/issues involved with Filter Bubbles. Please let me know if you have any suggestions to improve this section. I am open to collaborating with other editors. --Mcoop23 (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

57 signals claim removal

I've removed references to filter bubbles being created by algorithms that use 57 different signals to determine search results as this was not cited and does not, on the face of it, seem true. Multiple sources support the concept that Google uses over 200 factors, whilst Facebook's own engineers have been quoted in saying they use "hundreds". Stating that there are 'x factors' implies that there is some sort of standardised way to personalise search results, in any case, which is misleading.

Itsfini (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Deradicalization

@Fixuture: I noticed that you added a link to Deradicalization in this article's "See also" section. Is this relevant to the article's topic in any way? Jarble (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Critique

Filter Bubble Article Critique This is a neutral evaluation of this article with minor suggestions for improvement that were noticed upon reading. All referenced facts have reliable sources such as Associated Press media outlets and journals i.e. The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, etc. Due to most if not all information coming from sources that fall under the Associated Press, the large majority of facts are unbiased. This is a balanced article with no biases or persuasive perspectives, there are many media and personal reactions, but opinions are omitted from these excerpts. Only missing information is three citations necessary in the media reactions section --TheCanolli23 (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Editing for Filter Bubbles

This is a constructive peer edit of the purposed new section for this article entitled "Filter bubbles"

Overall the proposed new section gives the general idea of the subject, which is filter bubbles. There could be some improvements however, the citation are all at the end, so it makes it hard to tell where the author got all their information from and form what source. The fourth source is from a magazine article so I don’t think it would count as a reliable source. The author seems like they are doing original research as well or drawing their own conclusions. The author could be more objective in they information they are providing. VU68 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Counter Measures: Media (Updates)

I would like to make some updates in the Counter Measures media companies section to include more current information on both Facebook and Google if I am able to find it.

The articles listed below are those that I have found so far and plan to use in my research to update this section.

1. Digital Marketing. (2019). Facebook algorithm changes and what to expect in 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.ballantine.com/2018-facebook-algorithm-changes-what-to-expect-in-2019/ 2. Lindsey, N. (2019). New duck duck go study highlights the problem of the google filter bubble. Retrieved from: https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-privacy/new-duckduckgo-study-highlights-the-problem-of-the-google-filter-bubble/ 3. Nechushtai, E. & Lewis, S.C. (2019). What kind of news gatekeepers do we want machines to be? Filter bubbles, fragmentation, and the normative dimensions of algorithmic recommendations. Science Direct. Computers in Human Behavior. Volume 90. January 2019, p. 298-307. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563218303650 4. Seargeant, P. & Tagg, C. (2019). Social media and the future of open debate: A user-oriented approach to Facebook’s filter bubble conundrum. Science Direct. Discourse, Context & Media, Volume 27, March 2019, p. 41-48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211695817302271 5. Statt, N. (2018). Google personalizes search results even when you are logged out. Retrieved from: https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18124718/google-search-results-personalized-unique-duckduckgo-filter-bubble 6. Taylor, V. (2019). Top 10 changes you need to know about in 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.business2community.com/facebook/top-10-changes-to-facebook-you-need-to-know-about-in-2019-02172844

Rmcnamara2 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation Additions and Edits

Content

Added citation to this sentence- The term was coined by Internet activist Eli Pariser circa 2010 and discussed in his 2011 book of the same name; according to Pariser, users get less exposure to conflicting viewpoints and are isolated intellectually in their own informational bubble. Rmcnamara2 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Issues

I think that this article described what a filter bubble is pretty well. There were proper citations, but I felt like the article was describing filter bubbles in a much more negative light than a positive one. Although there were some points on how filter bubbles could be a good thing, overall what I thought when reading this was that they only separate us and make us more stuck in our ways. I think that this article could have been more neutrally written. I think that the possible positives of filter bubbles were underrepresented in this... Huge companies like Google would not use filter bubbles if they didn't see possible benefits. Natwijesinghe (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)natwijesinghe

Overall the Wikipedia is quite short, the subject is quite complex and could have more lengthy. The Wikipedia page mainly pulls their sources from Eli Parise, and does not offer a variety of viewpoints and opinions on the issue of filtered search. Also Eli Parise is subjective to the subject, and it would be better if the information written was more objective. It would be good it they could add more sources, to have a more elaborate details about for instance the laws that have been passed, or the social and cultural impact this is having. I think that the essay might be more productive as well if it presented graphs and charts. Overall the information on the subject seem to be pretty superficial and not in depth. They also talk about the NY times, and some cited that are planning on optimizing this filtered search. Maybe they could write a completion of what happened, if after the article people have actually changed their sites or the way they look at the internet. But then again this idea of filter bubble is still fairly new, so I am glad that they would even have that term defined and briefly explained.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.222 (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts and for not adding anything to the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This article should have more information about the benefits of filter bubbles. From a shoppers perspective I appreciate that Google already knows the brands that I like and is able to narrow down my search quickly based on my past search history. However, the alternative is that I am not giving other brands a chance. I am considering adding an "Advantages" section to help balance the article. However, if I do, does that mean I also need to add a disadvantages section? Rmcnamara2 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Dangers of Filter Bubbles

This is a proposal for a new section on the dangers of filter bubbles and how they have been a catalyst for a post-truth media world.

Filter Bubbles have stemmed from a surge in media personalization, and personalization can in fact trap users in a filter bubble. Jeff Bezos of Amazon said in 1994 that he wanted online book selling to, "go back to the days of a small bookseller who got to know you very well." That ideology has taken mainstream media by force, and that approach of using AI to cater products and filter suggestions to the user that seem relative to their interests is a staple in product sales. There are dangers to this approach though. We can get trapped in a filter bubble of personalization, where we will see satire articles that appear real, or things that may be completely untrue. The dangers of our ideals and morals not being challenged through media is that we get used to hearing what we want to hear. We will also react more radically when we see an opposing view point, because we're so used to our own that anything else will seem incorrect. By not catering our media to our interests, we will be constantly evaluating the world around us and our ideals and thoughts, instead of letting media force views onto us and accepting those views and ideals as our own. TheCanolli23 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add the following sentences to this section

Due to Filter Bubbling users may only see content that reinforces their own view point. Likewise, because of the way Facebook presents the content, it is difficult for the user to determine the source of the content they are seeing and ultimately decide for themselves whether what they are reading is coming from a reliable source or is Fake News. Thus reinforcing their own view point. Rmcnamara2 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I ended up posting this:

Due to Filter Bubbling users may only see content that only reinforces their own view point and never challenges it. Likewise, because of the way Facebook presents the content, it is difficult for the user to determine the source of the content they are seeing and ultimately decide for themselves whether what they are reading is coming from a reliable source or is Fake News.Rmcnamara2 (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Sources to Consider Adding

I am looking into the articles below to consider adding information to the page. Would love any feedback on how reliable you think they are.

Allred, K. (2018, Apr 13). The causes and effects of filter bubbles and how to break free. Medium.com. Retrieved at https://medium.com/@10797952/the-causes-and-effects-of-filter-bubbles-and-how-to-break-free-df6c5cbf919f.

Leetaru, K. (2017, Dec 18). Why 2017 was the year of the filter bubble? Forbes.com. Retrieved at https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/12/18/why-was-2017-the-year-of-the-filter-bubble/

The isolating web: Do filter bubbles narrow down our mind. Boston University. Retrieved at https://sites.bu.edu/cmcs/2018/12/06/the-isolating-web-do-filter-bubbles-narrow-down-our-mind/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh.munson (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

A few extra sources to study

I'm am checking into the following sources to inspect if there is any usable information:

Gottron, T., & Schwagereit, F. (2016). The Impact of the Filter Bubble -- A Simulation Based Framework for Measuring Personalisation Macro Effects in Online Communities.

Arina Rohmatul Hidayah. (2019). Persecution Act as Filter Bubble Effect: Digital Society and The Shift of Public Sphere. JSP: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu Politik, 22(2), 112-126.

Bates, M. (2016). Embracing the Filter Bubble. Online Searcher, 40(5), 72. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodonnell96 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I am currently studying this source for additional information:

Haim, M., Graefe, A., & Brosius, H. B. (2018). Burst of the filter bubble? Effects of personalization on the diversity of Google News. Digital Journalism, 6(3), 330-343. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodonnell96 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Article Improvements

After reading this article I did notice it was slightly biased. In the article it only covered the negative effects of filter bubbles. This article lacks coverage and view points on positive effects of filter bubbling has. Many individuals might like filter bubbling because they can get ads content based on things they are interested in and this article repressed many of the positive concepts.Ashleybedard (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you're talking about personalization more generally, this article is specifically about "intellectual isolation" hypothesized to be caused by personalization. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Article Improvements

Filter bubbles can also sway the user's view from one thing to another including politics. One way this an happens when new voters or inexperienced voters use search engines to search for candidates, filter bubbles can sway users views on many thing like this example is political beliefs. Filter bubbles can sway beliefs as well as keep users closed minded because they are only receiving information like political views based on what they've searched. It makes users very hard to break out of what they believe and how they perceive the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleybedard (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Contribution Critique

Including how political perspectives are major factors in filter bubbles is important, so the contribution topic is relevant. Using words like "close minded," and "very hard," reveals bias in what is being spoken about. I also noticed a few typos, particularly in the second sentence, and repeated wording. Lastly, your contribution should have a citations for each fact given and there are no links here. Cbmcinnis (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)cbmcinnisCbmcinnis (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody here knows what contribution you're talking about. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

contribution

Having filter bubbles in place can offer users many advantages. They can connect users to ads and media similar to their interests based on prior searches. They also make it easier for users to navigate the web because their interests will be presented first and they don't have to do a lot of scrolling to find the information they want. In addition filter bubbles also create an easier way for users to connect based on similar interests they share in common. They can also connect customers to companies based on what they've searched which makes it easier for the customer and provides marketing for the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleybedard (talk • contribs) 01:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Student Review and Contributions.

I am a student who was assigned to review, edit, and offer some contributions to this page. The topic is fascinating, and I am impressed with how this page has seemed to develop over time. Reading the back and forths, proposed sections, and various critiques of the idea and of how the article has been framed has been quite interesting and informative. Filter bubbles are certainly involved with and highly relevant to many vital issues--democracy, misinformation, privacy, etc.--and there are many different approaches to studying them. I have tried to write my contributions neutrally, and they should all be reliable. Please check links and let me know if any language somewhere does not make sense and/or needs alteration. I believe the two most significant contributions I have made are the inclusion of scholarly differences in opinion on the definition of filter bubbles (and therefore any consensus of rigorous, interdisciplinary evidence for them) and scholarly views and concerns with the effects filter bubbles have on health-related information and issues.

Most of my contributions are academic studies, and I am going to list below the rationale for each of them, section by section, in order of where they appear in the article.

• For the Lead section, I added a link to the well-being page and mentioned misinformation in order to frame and preview my contributions both to the ethical implications section and other sections that touch upon misinformation. The studies I cite regarding filter bubbles and their effects on health misinformation do not all explicitly use the term well-being, but I figured the term was a catch-all that expresses the commonality between all the specific issues touched upon by the health-related sources I added (pseudo-science, suicide, reliance on the internet for health information rather than medical professionals, etc).
• For the Platform studies section, I have added another study here that adds on to the discussion of demographic and ideological effects related to filter bubbles as well as expands the discussion to the study of personality factors. I have also created a new paragraph/subsection within the Platform Studies section regarding the use of social bots by researchers studying filter bubbles and polarization, along with a visual diagram that comes from the 2019 study on Weibo that I cite. I also replaced a link that appeared to have been broken in the paragraph about DuckDuckGo.
• For the Academia studies and reactions section, I have added a few articles that discuss how some scholars report filter bubbles don't have clear, shared definitions or rigorous empirical evidence across scholarly disciplines.
• For the Countermeasures section I made a minor edit and added a link to theflipside, a media outlet that is highly similar to allsides and hitfromtheotherside. Theflipside seemed like a welcome addition here.
• For the Ethical Implications section I have added four sources that discuss scholarly views on the effects of filter bubbles and related ideas (echo chambers, etc.) on internet user behavior and beliefs regarding healthcare. I chose to add this particular set of contributions here because the sentences that precede them mention "biased and misleading information" and it seemed like a logical place to include these sources about healthcare misinformation.

Altogether I have added 13 sources. Again, let me know if any source or contribution seems off. Glparks (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You should review WP:SECONDARY if you haven't already, usually we prefer secondary sources, for example "Age, gender, personality, ideological attitudes and individual differences in a person's news spectrum: how many and who might be prone to “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers” online?" is a primary source that's too new to get any significant citations and assess its importance, and therefore difficult to justify inclusion at this time. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Article Initial Review

Filter Bubble Article Evaluation:

Initial Review Notes:

- Reaction section is over-developed and could potentially be broken down further by sub-paragraphs such as:

- Academia Reactions

- Media Reactions

- For Similar Concepts, Echo Chamber is only described with a quote from Barack Obama. This section could include the opening of the echo chamber page in order to provide a better explanation on this page.

Gzjthomas10 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Gzjthomas10

Bibliography -

I am a student and am adding relevant sources to this article for future editing. I have yet to edit the article itself, just adding sources for future reference.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wcalrOI1YbQC&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=journal+articles+filter+bubble&ots=I3a2uuPwJs&sig=OeCPP-KO1erQ4ERVbSO3Qttud9U#v=onepage&q=journal%20articles%20filter%20bubble&f=false

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2566486.2568012

GroupLens Research. (2014, April 01). Exploring the filter bubble: The effect of using recommender systems on content diversity. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2566486.2568012

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2441955.2441981

University of Michigan. (2013, February 01). Bursting your (filter) bubble: Strategies for promoting diverse exposure. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2441955.2441981

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2470654.2481326

Q. Vera Liao University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Liao, Q., Urbana-Champaign, U., Wai-Tat Fu University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Fu, W., Inria, . . . Authors: Q. Vera Liao University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (2013, April 01). Beyond the filter bubble: Interactive effects of perceived threat and topic involvement on selective exposure to information. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2470654.2481326

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4937233/

Holone, H. (2016, June 30). The filter bubble and its effect on online personal health information. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4937233/

Eapostle (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Is PLoS ONE a relevant source to be cited ?

I edited the page adding a sentence in the "Platform Studies" section about a scientific study about YouTube. This study uses empirical data and quantitative analysis, and was published in PLoS ONE. A user deleted my contribution on the basis that "Source does only non-traditional partial peer review".

PLoS ONE is a renowned international interdisciplinary scientific journal with an Impact Factor of 2.74 as of 2019. This kind of publication seems to be well suited as a Wikipedia reference and to respect the platform guidelines (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship) regarding what's make an academic work relevant.

Compared to other references in the page: a PLoS ONE reference made to highlight a quantified observation on YouTube's algorithms effects has been deleted while numerous references to general public press (Wired, New York Magazine, etc.) are used to assert vague affirmation such as filter bubble "harming democracy". Furthermore, numerous less renowned scientific venues are cited throughout the page, such as the Croatian Medical Journal.

Given these elements, I undo the user's deletion of my contribution, hoping he will explain better his criticism towards PLoS ONE.

I respectfully disagree; you haven't addressed or acknowleged the point about it being non-traditional peer review. I agree that some of the other sources on the page should ideally be removed. I have some issues with your editing that I'll place on your Talk page. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You didn't add any tangible elements on my talk page so I figured I would pursue our conversation here. PLoS ONE uses the same peer-review system as most renowed scientific venues. Trying to give credit to your criticism, I looked into what could be called "non traditional peer-review" and couldn't find anything relevant to this case, actually I couldn't find a definition of "non traditional peer-review", either on the WP page on the matter, or elsewhere. So far, I established that PLoS one is a very legitimate source of scientific content and you didn't provide any element contradicting this except your non-referenced concept of "non traditional peer review" that, despite my questions, you didn't expand or justify. Therefore I, once again, cancel your deletion and encourage you to provide more details and references in your critics before deleting my contribution again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant1mazr (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Their peer review system is a "radical departure from the stifling constraints of (the) existing (peer review) system". [1] Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ant1mazr I appreciate that you're refraining from edit-warring the issue. If you still disagree about its inclusion, as always feel free to solicit a third opinion either from the editors on this page or from WP:3O (after ensuring you've made any disclosures required to comply with WP:COI, of course). Alternatively, feel free to bring up the issue again once the paper has been out long enough to receive significant citations, in order to give us a better feel for how significant the paper is to the academic discussion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you were more into edit-warring than me since you deleted my contribution several times without giving any proper argument. Once again, "non traditional peer-review" is not a thing, and you never took the time to elaborate either on this or the scientific quality of Plos One. I hope, at least, you enjoyed yourself. Please refrain from condescendingly commenting further on this edit and proceed to bullying other contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant1mazr (talk • contribs) 06:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Extra sources

1. Analyzing the Impact of Filter Bubbles on Social Network Polarization. Research Article in ACM Digital Library, 2020. https://dl-acm-org.ezproxy.wellesley.edu/doi/10.1145/3336191.3371825 This shows filter bubble's impact on social media is linked to increased social polarization.

2. The truth behind filter bubbles: Bursting some myths. Article in University of Oxford's Reuters Institute website. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/truth-behind-filter-bubbles-bursting-some-myths This shows filter bubble isn't the only and biggest factor in societal divisions. Jydl (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcoop23. Peer reviewers: Llevan2, Aimende.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gzjthomas10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheCanolli23. Peer reviewers: VU68.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rmcnamara2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 May 2019 and 12 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Josh.munson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 9 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wodonnell96. Peer reviewers: Izzyseverns.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 28 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashleybedard. Peer reviewers: Cbmcinnis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Glparks, Ramoore2. Peer reviewers: Lmaness3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 25 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eapostle. Peer reviewers: Rathtmoseleyjr, Sal.hammad21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LilahMonahan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 14 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Johnmichael9.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 March 2021 and 2 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jydl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alyahsrepooc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HLMarcus. Peer reviewers: S0376334.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)