User talk:Aimende/sandbox

Peer Review 1

"Constituents did not have information about both candidates available, as they were more likely to view information that they already agreed with.[1] For Example, Facebook is more likely to suggest posts that are congruent with the usersstandpoints so there was repetition of already stable standpoints instead of a diversity of opinions. Diversity of opinion is necessary for true democracy as it facilitates communication, and echo chambers, like that of Facebook, inhibit this. [2] Echo chambers are blamed in part for the success of Donald Trump in the 2016 elections, as it did not allow for people to truly exchange perspectives on what presidency under Trump would mean to them."

I think the first and last sentence are too bold of claims. I get what you are trying to say, but I think it needs to be structured differently in order to get the right message across. In the first sentence, information for both candidates was technically available, but the way the sentence is structured makes it seem like the information was not available. I suggest restructuring it to something like this: Constituents were more likely to view information about the candidates that they already agreed with, creating an echo chamber. The last sentence, in my opinion, is way too bold of a claim for Wikipedia, especially without a source cited. Maybe find a source that supports this claim or restructure the sentence to make less of a bold claim.

"The study of ethics values openness and willingness to express opinioncitation?. Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics, describes one of the values magnanimity as “greatness of soul” and one of the with the characteristic of being a magnanimous person is having the ability to express opinions honestly and listen to others’ opinions without placing value on one over the other. Therefore, there is some value on openness to the perspectives of others. (1129b in Book V), phronesis or practical judgment as shown by good leaders (1144b in Book VI) Echo chambers, on the other hand, close off the opinions of others. Echo chambers by isolating people and producing situations in which one reinforces their own opinion without listening to other opinions. Thus, proving echo chambers to be somewhat contradicting to the value of magnanimity. This is one of the issues that echo chambers elicits in respects to ethics and morality as it was thought that good ethics involved openness while echo chamber produces the opposite effect cite bc you said it was thought?.

Closing one’s experiences off to those who don’t agree with you is even more ethically ambiguous as much of the power of the closing off is not in the hands of the social media consumer but instead, in the hands of the social media companies. Facebook, for example, creates an algorithm that provides a user with posts that they are more likely to agree with or like cite. Therefore, the isolation is in some part, imposed on users. This then raises an issue of autonomy and rights the user has in their power of their own echo chambers. So the ethical issues are only in the individual scale of not being open to others’ perspectives, but also in that the main controlling party in this isolation is the social media company instead of the social media user."

In the bolded citation a couple sentences in, I can't follow it. I think there is a typo somewhere. I almost think in the sentences before it you could just say that "there is a value on openness to perspectives of others in Aristotle's virtue of magnanimity" or something like that, so it is more concise. The first sentence of the second paragraph says good stuff, but I think it is too long and you get kind of lost in it. I just feel like generally this section was not written for Wikipedia but more in a paper type format. It isn't a problem of neutrality but more the way it is written feels like i'm reading a paper rather than a Wikipedia article. The information is really really good and well thought out, but the way it is written I think needs to revised a little.

Harperclouston (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

I really liked how you tied in together the concept of Facebook and the tailoring on news feeds to the echo chamber topic. It supports your following argument about echo chambers playing a part in the election of Donald Trump. At the beginning of the second paragraph (ethics edits), I would check punctuation (incorrect use of commas and awkward sentence structure, try "In his work of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes magnanimity as one of the values that ....."). The first sentence of the last paragraph (Closing one’s experiences off to those who don’t agree with you is even more ethically ambiguous as much of the power of the closing off is not in the hands of the social media consumer but instead, in the hands of the social media companies) sounds a little objective, I would rephrase and generalize. Other than that, I think you are on the right track. Sgarc23 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 3

The way your article is developing looks amazing. The article's lead section seems quite solid. The structure of the body is quite clear, well. I think you would a great job in contributing to the article by adding the information you are trying to add about its an echo chamber's ethical applications. There is a lot of breadth in your article, and the tone is relatively neutral. However, the article could use some more information to balance out the (overall negative) positions on Echo Chambers, if any other positions genuinely exist at this time (and from accredited sources). If anything could improve, I would focus on some of article's wording and definitions. Although it gives a lot of good detail, some things may not be necessary to explain so thoroughly. In other words, if the article is going to incorporate several definitions, they should all be appropriately sited (while still keeping in mind the necessity to use different sources for neutrality), and still be relevant to the Wiki page's main points. Specific places to look over would be the "How it Works" section. Overall, you are on the right track. Ewooten (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)ewooten

Instructor Comments

I agree with Harper's assessment, especially regarding the boldness of some of your claims (which need qualification and/or citation) and the essay tone of Aristotle passage (which I think should be removed or rephrased significantly). I'm also not sure if some of the general sentences in the 2016 election example paragraph actually belong there, or more integrated with the "How it works" section. Make the changes Harper recommends, then meet with me and we'll get it looking beautiful and ready to go! (Ah -- a couple students got confused and posted their reviews on your user talk page instead of the sandbox talk page. Make sure you read them too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aimende Nevermind, I just moved them over here for convenience.)

--Jmstew2 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Jmstew2