Peering into the Internet Abyss: Using Big Data Audience Analysis to Understand Online Comments

References

• Agboka, G. Y. (2013a). Participatory localization: A social justice approach to navigating unenfranchised/disenfranchised cultural sites. Technical Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 28–49. doi:10.1080/10572252.2013.730966
   Google Scholar
• Agboka, G. Y. (2013b). Thinking about social justice: Interrogating the international in international technical communication discourse. Connexions, 1(1), 29–38.
   Google Scholar
• Agboka, G. Y. (2014). Decolonial methodologies: Social justice perspectives in intercultural technical communication research. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44(3), 297–327. doi:10.2190/TW.44.3.e
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, E. (2016). A theory of persuasive computer algorithms for rhetorical code studies. enculturation, (23). http://enculturation.net/a-theory-of-persuasive-computer-algorithms
   Google Scholar
• Beveridge, A. (2017). Writing through big data: New challenges and possibilities for data-driven arguments. Composition Forum, 37. http://www.compositionforum.com/issue/37/big-data.php
   Google Scholar
• Black, M. L. (2016). The world wide web as complex data set: Expanding the digital humanities into the twentieth century and beyond through internet research. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 10(1), 95–109. doi:10.3366/ijhac.2016.0162
   Google Scholar
• Breuch, L. K. (2015). Glocalization in website writing: The case of mnsure and imagined/actual audiences. Computers and Composition, 38(Part B), 113–125. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2015.09.009
   Google Scholar
• Brock, K. (2014). Enthymeme as rhetorical algorithm. Present Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society, 4(1), 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Brock, K., & Shepherd, D. (2016). Understanding how algorithms work persuasively through the procedural enthymeme. Computers and Composition, 42, 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2016.08.007
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. J. (2015). Ethical programs: Hospitality and the rhetorics of software. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1–12. doi:10.1177/2053951715622512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64, 658–679. doi:10.1111/jcom.2014.64.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colton, J., & Holmes, S. (2018b). Rhetoric, technology, and the virtues. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Colton, J. S., & Holmes, S. (2018a). A social justice theory of active equality for technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 48(1), 4–30. doi:10.1177/0047281616647803
   Google Scholar
• Colton, J. S., Holmes, S., & Walwema, J. (2017). From NoobGuides to #OpKKK: Ethics of anonymous’ tactical technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(1), 59–75. doi:10.1080/10572252.2016.1257743
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dush, L. (2015). When writing becomes content. College Composition and Communication, 67(2), 173–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etim, B. (2017, June 13). The times sharply increases articles open for comments, using Google’s technology. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/insider/have-a-comment-leave-a-comment.html
   Google Scholar
• Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, J. R. (2015). Five strategies internet writers use to “continue the conversation.”. Written Communication, 32(4), 396–425. doi:10.1177/0741088315601006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, J. R. (2017). Writing for algorithmic audiences. Computers and Composition, 45, 25–35. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2017.06.002
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, J. R. (2018). Considering the comments: Theorizing online audiences as emergent processes. Computers and Composition, 48, 34–48. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2018.03.002
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, J. R., & Holmes, S. (2019). Empty templates: The ethical habits of empty state pages. Technical Communication Quarterly, 1–13. doi:10.1080/10572252.2018.1564367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardiner, B., Mansfield, M., Anderson, I., Holder, J., Louter, D., & Ulmanu, M. (2016, April 12). The dark side of Guardian comments. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments
   Google Scholar
• Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzales, L., & Turner, H. N. (2017). Converging fields, expanding outcomes: Technical communication, translation, and design at a non-profit organization. Technical Communication, 64(2), 126–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S. S., Kim, S.-Y., DeVasto, D. M., & Keith, W. (2015). Statistical genre analysis: Toward big data methodologies in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 70–104. doi:10.1080/10572252.2015.975955
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulbrandsen, K. (2012). Revising the technical communication service course. Programmatic Perspectives, 4(2), 243–254.
   Google Scholar
• Haas, A. M. (2012). Race, rhetoric, and technology: A case study of decolonial technical communication theory, methodology, and pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(3), 277–310. doi:10.1177/1050651912439539
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart-Davidson, W., & Omizo, R. (2017). Genre signals in textual topologies. In L. Walsh & C. Boyle (Eds.), Topologies as techniques for a post-critical rhetoric (pp. 99–123). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hayles, N. K. (2012). How we think: Digital media and contemporary Technogenesis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, S. (2014). Rhetorical allegorithms in bitcoin. enculturation, 18. Retrieved from http://www.enculturation.net/rhetoricalallegorithms
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, E. (2016). NPR website to get rid of comments. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/08/17/489516952/npr-website-to-get-rid-of-comments
   Google Scholar
• Jones, N. N. (2016). The technical communicator as advocate: Integrating a social justice approach in technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(3), 342–361. doi:10.1177/0047281616639472
   Google Scholar
• Jones, N. N., Moore, K. R., & Walton, R. (2016). Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: An antenarrative of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 211–229. doi:10.1080/10572252.2016.1224655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Lewis, S. C., & Watson, B. R. (2018). The imagined audience for and perceived quality of news comments: Exploring the perceptions of commenters on news sites and on Facebook. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 1–12. doi:10.1177/2056305118765741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjeldsen, J. E. (2016). Studying rhetorical audiences: A call for qualitative reception studies in argumentation and rhetoric. Informal Logic, 36(2), 136–158. doi:10.22329/il.v36i2.4672
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laquintano, T. (2016). Mass authorship and the rise of self-publishing. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laquintano, T., & Vee, A. (2017). How automated writing systems affect the circulation of political information online. Literacy in Composition Studies, 5(2), 43–62. doi:10.21623/1
   Google Scholar
• Larson, B., Hart-Davidson, W., Walker, K. C., Walls, D. M., & Omizo, R. (2016). Use what you choose: Applying computational methods to genre studies in technical communication. Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, 8, 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Loke, J. (2012). Public expressions of private sentiments: Unveiling the pulse of racial tolerance through online news readers’ comments. Howard Journal of Communications, 23(3), 235–252. doi:10.1080/10646175.2012.695643
   Google Scholar
• McNely, B. (2012). Big data, situated people: Humane approaches to communication design. Communication Design Quarterly, 1(1), 27–30. doi:10.1145/2448917.2448923
   Google Scholar
• McNely, B., Spinuzzi, C., & Teston, C. (2015). Contemporary research methodologies in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/10572252.2015.975958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melonçon, L., & St. Amant, K. (2019). Empirical research in technical and professional communication: A 5-Year examination of research methods and a call for research sustainability. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 49(2), 128–155. doi:10.1177/0047281618764611
   Google Scholar
• Moretti, F. (2007). Graphs, maps, trees: Abstract models for literary history. New York, NY: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Moretti, F. (2013). Distant reading. New York, NY: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Moss, L. (2017, June 19). How The New York Times moderates 12,000 comments a day. Digiday. Retrieved from https://digiday.com/media/new-york-times-moderates-12000-comments-day/
   Google Scholar
• Moss-Racusin, C. A., Molenda, A. K., & Cramer, C. R. (2015). Can evidence impact attitudes? Public reactions to evidence of gender bias in STEM fields. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(2), 194–209. doi:10.1177/0361684314565777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muddiman, A., & Stroud, N. J. (2017). News values, cognitive biases, and partisan incivility in comment sections. Journal of Communication, 67, 586–609. doi:10.1111/jcom.2017.67.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller, D. N. (2018). Network sense: Methods for visualizing a discipline. Louisville, KY: University Press of Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. New York, NY: Crown.
   Google Scholar
• Omizo, R., & Hart-Davidson, W. (2016a). Finding genre signals in academic writing. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 485–509. doi:10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.08
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omizo, R., & Hart-Davidson, W. (2016b). Hedge-O-Matic. enculturation, 22. Retrieved from http://enculturation.net/hedge-o-matic
   Google Scholar
• Omizo, R., Nguyen, M.-T., Clark, I., & Hart-Davidson, W. (2016). You can read the comments again: The faciloscope app and automated rhetorical analysis. DHCommons Journal, 2.
   Google Scholar
• Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2005). Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp. 115–124),  Ann Arbor, Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pflugfelder, E. H. (2013). Big data, big questions. Communication Design Quarterly, 1(4), 18–22. doi:10.1145/2524248.2524253
   Google Scholar
• Prochazka, F., Weber, P., & Schweiger, W. (2018). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies, 19(1), 62–78. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1161497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullman, G., & Gu, B. (2008). Guest editors’ introduction: Rationalizing and rhetoricizing content management. Technical Communication Quarterly, 17(1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/10572250701588558
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, S. T. (2016). Commercial content moderation: Digital laborers’ dirty work. In Safiya Umoja Noble and Brendesha M. Tynes (Eds.), The intersectional internet: Race, sex, class and culture online (pp. 147–160). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121–138. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvo, M. J. (2012). Visual rhetoric and big data: Design of future communication. Communication Design Quarterly, 1(1), 37–40. doi:10.1145/2448917.2448925
   Google Scholar
• Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J. Y., Chuang, J., Manning, C. D., Ng, A. Y., & Potts, C. (2013). Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1–12), Seattle, Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Solberg, J. (2012). Googling the archive: Digital tools and the practice of history. Advances in the History of Rhetoric, 15(1), 53–76. doi:10.1080/15362426.2012.657052
   Google Scholar
• Southern, L. (2017, March 16). The financial times: Readers who comment are 7 times more engaged. Digiday. Retrieved from https://digiday.com/uk/financial-times-reader-comments/
   Google Scholar
• Stephens, E. J. (2017). Doing big data: Considering the consequences of writing analytics. Journal of Writing Analytics, 1(1), 344–355.
   Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J., & Schiappa, E. (1998). The argumentative burdens of audience conjectures: Audience research in popular culture criticism. Communication Theory, 8(1), 27–62. doi:10.1111/comt.1998.8.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Underwood, T. (2017). A genealogy of distant reading. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 11(2). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/11/2/000317/000317.html
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickman, C. (2014). Wicked problems in technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44(1), 23–42. doi:10.2190/TW.44.1.c
   Google Scholar