User:Rmcnamara2/sandbox

Content:

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Although the there are more current references used in the article (2015/2016) the article seems to focus on historical information and contributions through 2003. What has been happening with Media Psychology in the last 5 years? Are there any new theories?
 * What else could be improved? Add links to emerging topics (at the end of the article). There is some use of passive voice that could be edited to strengthen the article. There is a typo in the Historical section and some other grammatical errors. There is no key concepts section.

Tone:

 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article seems to be objectively written.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is no mention of the relationship and affects between people and social media platforms. There also could be a section of current studies.

Sources:

 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? I tried a couple links from each section and all of the links that I tried work and support the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? In the Major Contributors section, Zillman's theory is presented as fact and the author states that "After watching an aggressive scene, an individual will become aggressive due to the arousal from the scene", this should be reworded to demonstrate that Zillman's theory proposes....and should include the reference. In my opinion there should be more references used throughout the entire article.

Talk Page:

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are a fair amount of comments on the talk page, but not much discussion and no one has commented since 2017.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This is a level 5 Article and a part of Wiki Project Psychology and Wiki Project Media
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article gives a brief overview of the topic and major contributors. The article fails to mention social media at all. However, if you follow the media psychology link the current articles are all related to different social media topics. This wiki article needs to be updated to include current Media Psychology information.

Optional:
Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — ~.

Counter Measures
In the Counter Measures media companies section: Facebook information is current as of 2017. What changes have been made since then? Google was supposed to be making changes to their filter bubbles in 2018. This section could be updated to include progress in that area. Were they able to make the changes as promised? I would like to research this more and add to this portion of the article.

Possible Edits
Furthermore, the way Facebook presents material makes it difficult for users to determine the source of the content they are seeing and determine whether what they are reading is coming from a reliable source or is Fake News.

Due to Filter Bubbling users may only see content that reinforces their own view point. Likewise, because of the way Facebook presents the content, it is difficult for the user to determine the source of the content they are seeing and ultimately decide for themselves whether what they are reading is coming from a reliable source or is Fake News. Thus reinforcing their own view point.

I ended up posting this:

Due to Filter Bubbling users may only see content that only reinforces their own view point and never challenges it. Likewise, because of the way Facebook presents the content, it is difficult for the user to determine the source of the content they are seeing and ultimately decide for themselves whether what they are reading is coming from a reliable source or is Fake News.

Edits : Going to look through the article and try to add some additional citations.
Added citation to this sentence in the content section.

The term was coined by Internet activist Eli Pariser circa 2010 and discussed in his 2011 book of the same name; according to Pariser, users get less exposure to conflicting viewpoints and are isolated intellectually in their own informational bubble.

Possible additions:
This article should have more information about the benefits of filter bubbles. From a shoppers perspective I appreciate that Google already knows the brands that I like and is able to narrow down my search quickly based on my past search history. However, the alternative is that I am not giving other brands a chance. I am considering adding an "Advantages" section to help balance the article. However, if I do, does that mean I also need to add a disadvantages section?

 Advantages/Disadvantages: 

Advantages:

Filter bubbles make it easier and faster to find more relevant information on the web. This benefits both the user and the website. By getting the user to the page more quickly, studies show the user will typically spend more time on the page. The more the algorithm understands the users preferences, the more time saving it will be. This could be especially advantageous to shoppers who are looking for a particular item or prefer a particular brand.

Disadvantages:

Removes alternative view points, which could hinder open mindedness. In removing alternative view points, filter bubbles also remove alternative shopping choices. A user who always buys a particular brand or product will be directed back to it again eliminating the possibility for other brands to reach the consumer.