User:Ayspiff/sandbox

Critiquing a Wikipedia Article The article I reviewed is on Chatbot, the topic is a sub-category under Technology in Society. To briefly describe the article it simply talks about the history of chatbots, which are also known as a chatterbox, talkbox, and bots. And a chatbot is simply a computer program that holds a conversation between itself and humans. The article gives a brief history on chatbots and how technology has been able to incorporate them into parts of society that we don't even think about today.

This article has a good amount of citations and references included, 26 citations to be exact. Now the problem with the references posted is the credibility. The sources seem appropriate, but some don't appear to be reliable. Like most of them look to be from blogs and those blogs draw up a lot of skepticism. But the editor did incorporate beneficial information from other sources and other Wikipedia articles that gave strength to what he or she posted. There wasn't anything I would consider distracting in the article, I mean the overview followed a basic structure, which was easy to follow. You have your introduction with background information, a quick history, followed by how chatbots have changed thanks to new technology. And then it ends with how new technology incorporates bots into other devices such as toys, phones, gaming systems and more.

The article isn't completely neutral because there's a small segment at the end that talks about the "malicious use of chatbots." And that alone would've been fine if the editor added the benefits of chatbots. That would've helped because, if you only have one point of view no matter how much information you have it still looks like that's your stance on a topic. The information seems to come from other Wikipedia articles, which the editor added links to and cited in the end. Also from blogs of computer programming companies and websites such as "SAP." It doesn't look like there was biased information, for the most part, this article is more like a history lesson and not an opinion based piece. I feel as though there could've been more viewpoints on the benefits as well as the problems that come with using chatbots. The links posted do work, and I don't think from what I saw there was plagiarism involved. There probably was paraphrasing because this piece reads like a history lesson, but then again I could be wrong. Also, the information does appear to be up to date but, I'm confident that there is a lot more information that can be added to this article. Fafa Spiff 01:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Add to an Article: Chatbot Strengths: The biggest strength of this article is the length, meaning from a visual perspective it's definitely more appealing than most Wikipedia articles. Another strong point is that the author appears to be neutral on the subject for the majority of the article. Also by giving a historical background on the technology itself helps a reader truly understand what a chatbot is. That last part is important because just this past weekend I asked about 10-15 people if they knew what a chatbot was and only 3-4 actually did. Weaknesses: The article could've had better sources and citations, from the ones listed majority were blog posts. The credibility of the article as a whole seemed compromised at the end. Also, the editor would've benefited by adding the benefits and problems of chatbots. The editor should've also added how chatbots are being used in today's technology such as siri and more. Fafa Spiff 11:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)