Talk:Echo chamber (media)

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

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hana.irwin (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Zalata42.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KatieEle, Torianmorrow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hajith1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yaluys.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aimende. Peer reviewers: Sgarc23, Harperclouston, Ewooten.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Only a comment to commend the text as an excellent description of the media echo chamber. Well defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.4.187 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and that comment is itself an example of the echo chamber in operation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.134.136 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not well-defined at all: "*By participating* in an echo chamber, people *are able to seek out* information that reinforces their existing views". Echo chamber participants are not always aware of being in their chamber, nor do they necessarily "seek out" information (it may be received passively or involuntarily). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.111.146 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably the reason why the article says "people are able to seek out" instead of "people seek out". Awareness of being in an echo chamber is not a necessary condition even for seeking out such information. Rather, it would destroy the effect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the text is unclear to me[edit]

Specifically this, from the "How it impacts online communities" section:

The Internet may also be seen as a complex system (e.g., emergent, dynamic, evolutionary), and as such, will at times eliminate the effects of positive feedback loops (i.e., the echo chamber effect) to that system, where a lack of perturbation to dimensions of the network, prohibits a sense of equilibrium to the system. Complex systems that are characterized by negative feedback loops will create more stability and balance during emergent and dynamic behavior.

--Mediorite (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also this, from the same section:

The echo chamber effect may also impact a lack of recognition to large demographic changes in language and culture on the Internet if individuals only create, experience and navigate those online spaces that reinforce their world view.

"...impact a lack of recognition to large demographic changes in language and culture on the Internet..." ...huh?
--Mediorite (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Complex systems that are characterized by negative feedback loops will create more stability and balance during emergent and dynamic behavior.

This is not correct. It is very easy to use negative feedback loops to construct complex systems that show persistent oscillations (a simple example would be systems of chemical reactions, for instance glycolysis). Whoever wrote this should either specify what he meant or remove the sentence. -- Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.207.54.83 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion[edit]

The article seems woefully short. Here are two more sources that provide criticism of journalism as an echo chamber.

https://medium.com/@ryansmithwriter/a-weird-insider-culture-d1c3cc644c29 - a video game journalist criticising both his own sphere and journalism in general.

http://www.pocketgamer.biz/stateside/60011/escaping-the-echo-chamber-gamergaters-and-journalists-have-more-in-common-than-they-think/ - a video game journalist criticising the video games press.

There must be plenty of other criticism of this sort, and not just related to video games. There's no reason for the article to be this short.

I'll leave this here for others' consideration/comment, and return to it later. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you are talking about Capitalist, bourgeois CIA/Pentagon directed 'neutral'media like and CNN and wikipedia itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:4817:4340:E6F4:73D6 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the "summer of the shark" article in wikipedia is another rather famous example and fairly well documented. There have been many unremarked instances of mass media echo chambers which I think have different mechanisms to social media echo chambers there was a time in the very late 1980's or early 1990's where the media had picked up the idea that the aircraft fleet worldwide was ageing out and about to fall from the skys. Finding a reference would be difficult. [1] Ijeffsc (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Summer_of_the_Shark

Another example[edit]

While trying to find the etymology of "conniption", which resulted from someone's suggestion that "having conniptions" was the precursor of "having kittens", I found a discussion at http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/117739/what-is-the-origin-and-meaning-of-conniption-dido where the poster says: "The source of the Dido connection is difficult to pin down. Nineteenth-century periodicals and cyclopedias of knowledge exhibit much the same echo-chamber effect as today's Internet."

BTW: I have had mother cats and have actually assisted in delivery, and in no way was the mother "having kittens" in the sense of the idiomatic phrase. agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.43.206.142 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

I feel like more examples could be added and the implications for the 2016 presidential elections from echo chambers could be very much expanded. Ethical issues as to why echo chambers pose a problem could also be noteworthy and would be a good addition to the article. Nevertheless, the information presented in the article seems very relevant and nothing distracted from it, it is well written and well explained. Aimende (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things that could potentially be added: Examples, repercussions to the 2016 POTUS elections, ethical standpoints on closing off your interactions to only people who agree with you. Aimende (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not incorrect. However, as with the omnipresent Lists of "notable users" and such, what is REALLY needed is some credible and published source (or maybe two or three) that offers such a list. The problem with that would be curation since it's feasible that a source could be found who would offer up "The 100 Most Egregious Echo-Chamber Moments of the Year" and soon enough we'll have 1,000+ "notable examples" because that's how W'pedia runs (and it'll be worse because we'll need separate lists each for Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Fox News, CNBC, etc.).
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split between Media and Ideological?[edit]

I realize this is too small an article to split, but it seems like there are different forces at work for the two. Media echo chamber deals with transmitting and seems tied to 24-hour news cycle, news vacuum, news as a business, press release journalism,.... Ideological echo chamber deals with receiving and seems tied to confirmation bias, filter bubble, Selective exposure theory, Blinders,.... Perhaps there is a third one tied to propaganda where only one source is sending the message. StrayBolt (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least media echo chamber should be seperated from social media echo chambers. The mechanisms are different. MSM echo chambers result from the use of common wire feeds and competing media outlets watching each other closely for what other media outlets cover. Social media echo chambers come from content tailoring algorithms that feed individuals preferred content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijeffsc (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For propaganda, which might appear like an echo chamber, it would include Party line, Manufacturing Consent, motd, Company Way,.... StrayBolt (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Echo chamber (media). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solution section does not meet quality standards[edit]

The solution section presents a very narrow point of view this seems to be an attempt at (self?)promotion of a minor scientific paper. Fzbristol (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section and the description of the paper. The paper was not bad but it was based on a simulation, so it is not technically an empirical solution yet. Also, it was written as a scientific paper, not encyclopedic MexFin (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The near-ubiquity of certain delusional beliefs in relation to the concept need addressing[edit]

Most obviously, but not only, the almost invariably repeated myth - mass delusion in fact - often only implied rather than explicitly stated, that this phenomenon is in any way novel, or peculiar to the internet, when manifestly it IS NOT either of those things, should be documented. For as long as mass media has existed, and very likely long before that, people have always exercised discrimination with regard to the information they avail themselves of. Prior to the advent of the internet people chose the electronic broadcast outlets they did, and did not heed. Prior to the advent of electronic broadcast media people chose the print outlets they did, and did not heed. Prior to the advent of print media people chose the orators they did, and did not heed. And have always favoured associating with others like-minded. The axiom that 'there is nothing new under the Sun' seems to have been comprehensively forgotten. It is all highly imitative of younger persons' innate tendency toward believing they are the first to discover anything and everything; not least, and stereotypically, sex, for example. 49.181.92.153 (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need reliable sources to say that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The axiom that 'there is nothing new under the Sun' seems to have been comprehensively forgotten." That particular phrase derives from Ecclesiastes 1, and reflects its writer's pessimism (or despair) about life in general and the human condition specifically. He is the same writer who argued that "No one remembers the former generations, and even those yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow them". I would not expect many people to be using Ecclesiastes and its existential questions to shape their views about modern life. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some article issues[edit]

Just wanted to flag a few things I see as issues. First, and very minor here, it seems odd to me that the article doesn't mention that the origin of the term. Per "Research on the Echo Chamber Effect" (2021) by Jiuyu Chen, the term echo chamber effect first appeared in Cass Sunstein's 2001 book Echo Chambers: Bush v. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond. (I tried linking the Chen article—you can very easily Google the title and click on the link, but it's unfortunately one of Google links where you're sent to a longer Google link which downloads a pdf of the article. That sort of link triggers WP's blacklist, since they want you to follow the url ... which is normally great but which doesn't work if your browser doesn't show any other url before the pdf is downloade, so I can't link it here.)

But, more pressingly, I think the article isn't written in an encyclopedic tone. "However, empirical findings to clearly support these concerns are needed" may be true, but that's an odd thing to put in Wikipedia's voice, especially since the source seems to be an academic article that concludes "more empirical research is needed."

It's also very strange for one section to say "well more empirical research is needed before we can say this phenomenon really exists and has a strong effect" ... and then the next section to say "anyways this phenomenon has caused these things" (which is what the article currently does—the next section begins, "In recent years, closed epistemic networks have increasingly been held responsible for the era of post-truth and fake news."). Again, that may be true—and I have no doubt that the source says it is. But I think in-text attribution is needed here—otherwise, we're saying these things in an objective voice even though they're a bit contradictory.--96.94.213.161 (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to fix these issues and wikilink this section in the edit summary. You can cite the paper without the URL using its bibliographic info as you have done here. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Echo_chamber_(media)&oldid=1196363820"