Excluded data Ensure that the explanations for excluding that data are reasonable. Sometimes the “explanation” may be that the data inconveniently contrasted with the story the author wanted to tell.
I think even when there are outliers the data should still be included to give the readers the full spectrum.
Structure is another popular tool for making data immediately stand out. In the bar charts below, we’re looking at the same data but with different y-axis ranges. Notice how such a simple structural change can make data look much more significant.
This is one the most popular way to skew how data is interpreted because I have seen it a lot and all through school I was taught to look out for graphs with y-axis like this.
If this map were showing percentage of the population that smokes (dark = more, light = fewer), we may quickly conclude that Kentucky has a serious smoking problem. But what if we looked at the raw numbers and saw that 27% of Kentuckians and 23% of Utahans smoke? Not so big of a difference after all.
I think this is also based on the range of percentage between all states but the colors should match the range.
We have a natural tendency to trust images more than text.
I'm guilty of that as well.
data scientists can twist public opinion to their benefit and even profit at our expense.
It's amazing that they can do this and it's not considered deceitful and bad business practices. It almost just gets swept under the rug.
latforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are anything but neutral, says Tristan Harris, a former “design ethicist” for Google. By delivering likes and shares one at a time, by limiting options in ways that continually steer you back to the platform, and by showing you whatever it will take to keep you scrolling or watching videos, they are deliberately attempting to get their users hooked, he says.
This makes sense. The new IOS update offers a diagnostic basically telling you the amount of time you spend on certain apps throughout the day. It's quite shocking to see how much time I have spent on certain apps. Those tend to be the ones I constantly go back to. After reading this, I would assume these apps/social media platforms have that addictive design.
Professor Crockett notes that people are far more likely to learn about violations of moral norms online than they are to witness them in person. She adds that acts witnessed online tend to elicit greater moral outrage than those viewed through traditional media.
It's less of a risk in my opinion to speak out against moral violations online than in person.
The legal system has intervened more than once to sort out false reviews. I
I can understand why this would result in legal matters. To me this is a form of slander especially when it effects someone's livelihood.
For one thing, the sheer volume of reviews can transform a simple purchase into a research project. Buying something as basic as a water bottle online now involves surveying a dozen brands, winnowing them down based on star rankings or popularity statistics, and reading a handful of reviews about the attributes of each model (leakiness? ease of cleaning?), and weighing the conflicting opinions (“Best water bottle ever!” “Do not under any circumstances buy this piece of garbage!”).
I agree, buying simple things isn't as impulsive as it used to be. Now even just looking at a notebook online I'm reading reviews to see if other shoppers gave it a good rating.
A 2013 survey by Nielsen showed that four out of five Yelp users said they read customer feedback before making a purchase.
I can definitely relate to this. I actually watch some youtube videos of clothing hauls from some cheap online boutiques before I shop from them.
even to apps like Lulu that rate people.
This reminds me so much of a Black Mirror episode I saw where the whole society rates people based on their experiences with them and this affects their credit score essentially. So for those people who are rude and not friendly, they receive low scores and aren't able to get a good job, buy a house, or buy a car. Essentially making them homeless and starving.
This is due to how the sites display comments or choose not to, how businesses influence what’s written about them, and the fact that only a small fraction of customers write reviews.
Reason why we need to have critical thinking as a community. When businesses can hide negative reviews than it is easy to view the only comments provided and believe them.
Ideally the sites allow consumers to make up their minds by sampling a wide range of public opinion, rather than taking the word of advertisers or professional critics.
Unfortunately this is why studying journalism has it draws backs. When bloggers can become famous or make money based off of their personal reviews without having been to school for it, makes it a little worry some.
If you do these steps, you're helping yourself and you're helping others by not increasing the circulation of these stories.
I have been taught these various ways to decipher false articles online in almost every class that requires a research essay. But for those who have never had to write research papers with the internet or those who have not had as much schooling would benefit from these tips.
"You'll isolate a claim that has something that can be objectively verified, you will seek the best primary sources in that topic. Find whether they match or refute or prove the claim being made, and then present with all limitations the data and what the data says about the claim being made," Mantzarlis says.
The way that fact checkers work is very effective for a professional setting but it would take the average person multiple hours just to read one article through that process.
Those who consume news also need to find ways of determining if what they're reading is true.
Most people that read things online weren't trained or taught to learn what is legitimate and what is false. Especially those who didn't grow up taking computer classes where you learned about web pages and resources rather than just how to type on a computer.