Talk:Filter bubble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


floated article[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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

"hotel California effect"[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Issues[edit]

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)

Article Evaluation[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)