Talk:Internet Shill

Draft is roughly 1/2 done. Needs to flesh out the concept of internet shill and some of the specific kinds of shilling that characterize the phenomenon.

Peer Review:

The article on Shilling is very well written and a captivating subject given its previous impacts and the progression of that power in the digital age. This is great work, and spot on for the assignment. With a few additions and edits this article will be a high quality addition to the UM MediaWiki.

Length & Structure

The length looks to be around 1700, on course for the 3000 word requirement. The structure of the article is well organized starting from an introduction, then etymology, history astroturfing and ethical issues. I believe that once some of the categories are fleshed out the article will sit comfortably in the +/- 100 zone. It would be best to work off the foundation that is already in place. Reading this article was not tiresome, due to the flow the structure created. The reader gets an overview and then moves through the history to where “shilling” is today. The only parts of the bone that could use some more meat would be the subcategories within ethical issues. There are very high profile shilling cases that had catastrophic economic effects.(financial crimes, ponzi schemes) Shilling is very prevalent in cryptocurrencies, where ‘shit coins’ attempt to “rug” buyers. High profile people like Elon Musk have been accused, while other more infamous tech gurus like John Macafee have been dodged grey areas of shilling charges. Elaborate on “moral disasters,” if the final draft has room. It would be fun to include one of these cases in the article, if it did not distract or corrupt the structure. The introduction and history of “shilling” is a very pleasant length and informative read. I would focus efforts to elaborate towards the end of the article. I do appreciate chunking information by sector in Astroturfing, and the author notes that more content will appear there. This is a great spot to build on the article. It may also be a good place to insert real life examples as stated previously. My only concern is that anecdotes may become distracting to the reader.

Clarity & Objective Reporting

The clarity of the article is very easy to read and digest. The introduction is strong and the etymology/history of the word is written in a way that is easy to understand. I would not change the first three headers of the article. Having the astroturfing subjects broken into sectors helped me understand the various worlds of shilling and then piece it together to contemplate the full universe of shilling. The clarity of the article allowed me to enjoy the reading and contemplate the subject at the same time. Great work. There is a note that more will be added to the Astroturfing section. For clarity, I would tie Astroturfing back into the original explanation of “shilling” so that the reader does not mistake Astroturfing for a completely separate subject. The article's clarity isn't in danger of this happening, but it may be something to consider. The article’s reporting is very objective. The topic has many salacious anecdotes and “moral disasters’ that could easily pull an author into a biased viewpoint. However, the article does a great job of explaining the issue while remaining objective. This will become more difficult in the revision if direct anecdotal cases of shilling are given. I think that bias can be avoided if the reader is given full context and perhaps a conclusion of the event. The examples given on social media are fascinating, and remain objective by given statistics from case studies. Please continue to include these studies and perhaps hyperlinks when possible (see also was a great addition)

GOOD WORK!