Jump to content

Talk:Filter bubble

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 8.41.197.222 (talk) at 17:00, 7 October 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 23:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over all the Wikipedia is quite short, the subject is quite complex and could have more lengthy.

The Wikipedia  page manly 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  sited 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.