User talk:Llevan2/sandbox
Peer Rough Draft Review
Nice work, Liza! I think this draft greatly enhances the ethical implications of Twitterbot, an aspect that was lacking in the original article. You have provided a nice variety of of sub-headings that consider the effects of Twitterbot. I have noted a couple of grammatical improvements in the text below:
Detecting non-human Twitter users has been of interests to academics. (Delete "and") University of Indiana has developed a BotOrNot free service, which (Delete "and") scores Twitter handles based on their likelihood (spelling) of being a Twitterbot[2][3][4]. One widely reported upon ("widely reported upon" sounds funny here...maybe use significant?) academic study estimated that up to 15% of Twitter users' accounts (were) automated bots[5][6]. The prevalence of Twitter Bots coupled with the ability of some bots to give seemingly human responses has enabled these non-human accounts to garner widespread influence[7][8].
Political
A subset (of) Twitter Bots programmed to complete social tasks played an important role in the 2016 Presidential Election[9]. Researches estimated that pro-Trump bots generated four tweets for every pro-Clinton automated account and out-tweeted pro-Clinton bots 7:1 on relevant hashtags during the final debate. Deceiving Twitter bots fooled candidates and campaign staffers into retweeting misappropriated quotes and accounts affiliated with incendiary ideals[10][11][12]. Concerns about political Twitter Bots include the promulgation of malicious content, increased polarization, and the spreading of fake news[13].
Self Care, Positive Influence- not sure what I'll call this section yet
Many non-malicious bots are popular for their entertainment value. (However,) as technology and the creativity of bot-makers improves, so does the potential for Twitterbots (to) fill social needs[14][15]. @tinycarebot is a Twitterbot that encourages followers to practice self care. (Delete "and") Brands are increasingly using automated Twitterbots to engage with customers in interactive ways[16][17].
Celebrity
I plan to add a few paragraphs on the prevalence of celebrity Twitter followers and celebrity outrage over Twitter's attempt to shut down automated Twitter bots/controversy with celebrities paying for followers.
As I mentioned above, I think you have a good start to your addition to the article! The overall tone of your article is neutral, and you clearly present the ethical and social impacts of TwitterBot. One suggestion is to make sure everything is cohesive and flows. Some of your sentences were a little long and drawn out, so just make sure you are concise and to the point.
--Mcoop23 (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
Detecting non-human Twitter users has been of interests to academics, and (delete) University of Indiana has developed a BotOrNot free service and scores Twitter handles based on their likeliehoof (likelihood) of being a Twitterbot[2][3][4].One widely reported upon academic (this doesn't seem necessary) study estimated that up to 15% of Twitter users accounts automated bots[5][6]. The prevalence of Twitter Bots coupled with the ability of some bots to give seemingly human responses has enabled these non-human accounts to garner widespread influence[7][8].
Political
A subset Twitter Bots programmed to complete social tasks played an important role in the 2016 Presidential Election[9]. Researches estimated that pro-Trump bots generated four tweets for every pro-Clinton automated account and out-tweeted pro-Clinton bots 7:1 on relevant hashtags during the final debate. Deceiving twitter bots fooled candidates and campaign staffers into retweeting misappropriated quotes and accounts affiliated with incendiary ideals[10][11][12].Concerns about political Twitter Bots include the promulgation of malicious content, increased polarization, and the spreading of fake news[13].
Self Care, Positive Influence- not sure what I'll call this section yet
Many non-malicious bots are popular for their entertainment value, but as technology and the creativity of bot-makers improves, so does the potential for Twitterbots that fill social needs[14][15]. @tinycarebot is a Twitterbot that encourages followers to practice self care and brands are increasingly using automated Twitterbots to engage with customers in interactive ways[16][17].
Celebrity
I plan to add a few paragraphs on the prevalence of celebrity Twitter followers and celebrity outrage over Twitter's attempt to shut down automated Twitter bots/controversy with celebrities paying for followers.
Your additions seem great and tie in very well with social media ethics! The tone seems very appropriate to Wikipedia and you did very well in citing all your claims. Additionally, your additions seem to go very well with the article that already exists and stays right on topic. After reading the Wikipedia page , I noticed your stats on the prevalence of Twitterbots differed. Might be beneficial to find a couple other sources in order to determine which one is accurate (24% of tweets or 15% of twitter users). Maybe it might even be beneficial to include both stats. I think that maybe instead of creating a whole new section on the @tinycarebot, you could instead, add it to the already existing bit under the examples section. The first paragraph you drafted, although filled with very good information, seems a bit disjointed, it doesn't seem to flow. Maybe adding some frases to connect all the ideas would be helpful. In the second paragraph, you talk about the 2016 presidential election, maybe you should specify that it was the US's presidential election. Finally, maybe you can specify what "widespread influence" means by noting how many followers these accounts have or how often they've made their way into the news. Overall very great additions and very interesting! I even looked up some of these twitter bots myself! Aimende (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Instructor Comments
Really nice job Liza. A few small things: make sure citations go outside the sentence punctuation, like this.[1] Also as Cooper noted you're missing an "of" in the first sentence of your political section. I agree with Adriana's comment about quantifying "widespread influence" (if you can) and adding the US specifier. I vote that the "self-care" section be called something more general, like positive influence, so it is clear where expansions can be made in the future -- potentially, other pro-social twitterbots could be described here even if they are unrelated to self care. You're very close to being done! You can go ahead and move over the sections you have done when you feel ready. --Jmstew2 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)