User:Aimende/sandbox

Draft One

Example Addition:

Constituents were more likely to absorb information about topics such as gun control and immigration that aligned with their preexisting beliefs, as they were more likely to view information they already agreed with. Facebook is more likely to suggest posts that are congruent with your standpoints; therefore there was mainly repetition of already stable standpoints instead of a diversity of opinions. Journalists argue that diversity of opinion is necessary for true democracy as it facilitates communication, and echo chambers, like those occurring in Facebook, inhibited this. Some believed echo chambers played a big part in the success of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential elections .

Ideas for expansion of "Echo Chamber" Article

- Adding examples, especially pertaining to the perceived consequences it had on the 2016 POTUS election

- How it adds to/impacts young adults' political activism

-Adding the ethical stand points of the consequences of an echo chamber

-Adding to the intro. Seems a bit bare and not properly cited.

Article Critiques

Yik Yak

This article seems very good at detailing information without leaning towards bias one way or another. One of the problems it does have is that not all the facts are cited properly. That is, some facts have a sign next to them that reads "citation needed". These facts are statistics for the most part, which is concerning because the author of that part of the article definitely got those numbers from somewhere and that should be cited. Otherwise, we can just assume that the author made up the numbers which is also concerning and the claim should then be deleted. As stated previously, the article seems to be very neutral. I can tell mostly from reading the text under the "Controversies" heading. All these controversies aren't backed with opinions from the authors about their implications or ethical issues. Instead, the authors outline the controversies and cite where they got the information from. I think this is a very good example of a neutral article. It is also neutral because it posts both good things about the app and bad things. So as readers, we get both sides of the story and not just one side that the author leans on. Additionally, most of the sources seem to be neutral and not biased, for example for the "Controversies" section, the sources come from news papers and official notices from school districts. These, in my opinion, are reliable sources. Nevertheless, some sources are not as reliable as these, for example, source number 5 comes from a website that doesn't seem official and additionally is called "The Yik Yakker". A source that has the same name as the topic discussed and that talks about how the app has made it to the top 10 calls for some scrutiny as it may clearly have heavy bias. This Wikipedia article seems to mirror how we talk about these things in class mainly because it does a good job of offering many viewpoints, both positive and negative. In class, we get to listen to everyone's point of view and I think that that is what is seen in this article. What does differ is that in the article most claims are backed up and aren't merely opinions. In class discussion we clearly don't have citations for everything we say and sometimes we do focus on merely our opinion on the ethical standing of something. Finally, the article currently has a Start-Class rating yet I feel like it should have a rating higher than that, like a C. The article seems to be for the most part, well cited, has good, complete information but is missing some as well, like under the heading, "Use in US politics", therefore, I believe the article fits better under C than under Start-Class.

Echo chamber (media)

The first thing I noticed about this article was that in the first introductory paragraph, there are no citations for the definitions of echo chambers in the news media. Making the sources of these claims clearer may make the article more reliable and robust. Other than this, facts seem to be well cited as the article goes on. It seems like some viewpoints are underrepresented, specifically both sides to what could make an echo chamber good versus what could make it bad. I think that adding these viewpoints could make a reader of the article more well rounded on the issues surrounding echo chambers and why it is important to note them. Citations seem to be good and links work fine. They seem to be reliable and unbiased for the most part. The one citation I could tell did not fit Wikipedia's "good sources" description is number 12 which comes from a blog. Maybe mentioning how this source could be biased would remedy the problem. I feel like more examples could be added and the implications for the 2016 presidential elections from echo chambers could be very much expanded. Ethical issues as to why echo chambers pose a problem could also be noteworthy and would be a good addition to the article. Nevertheless, the information presented in the article seems very relevant and nothing distracted from it, it is well written and well explained. The article quality scale is a C and I agree with this. I think it has good information that is well-cited for the most part, yet a lot could be added, mainly, examples of echo chambers and how it influenced or was perceived to influence the 2016 US presidential elections could be particularly noteworthy. Therefore, I agree with the grade it was given.