User:AshleyErinCOML/sandbox

Data access methods[edit]
There are several ways for third parties to access user information. Flickr is an example of a social media website that provides geotagged photos that allows users to view the exact location of where a person is visiting or staying. Geotagged photos make it easy for third party users to see where an individual is located or traveling to.[19] There is also growing use of phishing, which reveals sensitive information through secretive links and downloads through email, messages, and other communications. Social media has opened up an entirely new realm for hackers to get information from normal posts and messages.[20]

Share it with third parties[edit]
Nearly all of the most popular applications on Facebook—including Farmville, Causes, and Quiz Planet—have been sharing users' information with advertising and tracking companies.[21] Even though Facebook's privacy policy says they can provide "any of the non-personally identifiable attributes we have collected" to advertisers, they violate this policy. If a user clicked a specific ad in a page, Facebook will send the address of this page to advertisers, which will directly lead to a profile page. In this case, it is easy to identify users' names.[22] For example, Take With Me Learning is an app that allows teachers and students to keep track of their academic process. The app requires personal information that includes, school name, user's name, email, and age. But Take With Me Learning was created by company that was known for illegally gathering student's personal information without their knowledge and selling it to advertisement companies. This company had violated the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), used to keep children safe from identity theft while using the internet.[23] Most recently, Facebook has been scrutinized for the collection of users' data by cambridge analytica. Cambridge Analytica was collecting data from Facebook users’ after they agreed to take a psychology questionnaire. Not only could cambridge analytica access the data of the person who took the survey, they could also access all of the data of that person's Facebook friends. This data was then used to hopefully sway people's’ beliefs in hopes that they would vote for a certain politician. While what cambridge analytica did by collecting the data may or may not be illegal, they then transferred the data they acquired to third parties so that it could be used to sway voters.[24]

Edits/Notes:

 * Wowza - spelling and grammar errors (not just in this section, but throughout entire article)
 * Cambridge Analytica needs to be capitalized correctly throughout (done; 7/19)
 * COPPA - should be linked/referenced directly (done; 7/19)
 * "This data was then used to hopefully sway people's beliefs in hopes that they would vote for a certain politician." - This sentence needs a source/reference, and rephrasing
 * Facebook's privacy policy, which is directly quoted - does not include a reference (done; 7/19)
 * Geotagged/Geotagging/Geotag - could/should be linked/referenced/sourced
 * Phishing - could/should be linked/referenced/sourced

Suggested Revisions (in progress):

 * User information on social media platforms and networking services can be accessed by third parties numerous ways.
 * 7/19 Update -- Made and published edits directly to the article page; awaiting any feedback or corrections from others

Article Evaluation: Editing | Social Capital
References

de Zuniga, H. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals' social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication; J.Comput.-Mediat.Commun., 17(3), 319-336. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x

de Zúñiga, H. G., Barnidge, M., & Scherman, A. (2017). Social media social capital, offline social capital, and citizenship: Exploring asymmetrical social capital effects. Political Communication, 34(1), 44-68. doi:10.1080/10584609.2016.1227000

Lindström, M. (2014). Does social capital include trust? commentary on carpiano and fitterer (2014). Social Science & Medicine (1982), 116, 235. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.028

Pena López, J., & Sánchez Santos, J. (2014). Does corruption have social roots? the role of culture and social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 697-708. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1789-9

Article Evaluation | Postgraduate research
Evaluating Content


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic, but it is very vague and contains limited sourcing. Somewhat distracted by grammatical and formatting errors.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * There is certainly room for additional information to be added. Information seems to be relatively up-to-date, but some of the source material is greater than five years old and could be re-checked to see if there are more recent sources available.
 * What else could be improved?
 * Adding additional detailed information - again, the article just reads very vague.
 * Sourcing that does not necessarily come directly from a university (not entirely an unbiased source - seems like it could be considered similar to getting information about a company from their own website or press release) - or at least an additional second source to confirm the university soured information.

Evaluating Tone


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Overall there tone of the article is neutral, though there are some word choices in select sentences that could seem to indicate the author holds a specific viewpoint. There are no claims made in the article that are indicative of a position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no real viewpoints expressed in the article, though one could technically argue that it reads as if it was written from someone outside of the "postgraduate research" academia world, and therefore the views of those within the academia/research arena are not as represented. (But that would be a presumptive read, and not objective).

Evaluating Sources


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * There were only six sources that were linked in the article. Four of six were still active, but only three linked to the correct sites.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * As noted in the Evaluating Content section, I would not categorize these sources as an appropriate reliable reference or neutral. Some were directly from a university or institution, which though it did support the claim in the article, is not a neutral source. Another source, when the link was clicked, directed to a sponsored study abroad program, which was not at all relevant to what and where the source was linked in the article, and most certainly not a neutral or appropriate source.

Checking the Talk Page


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are no conversations or notes of any kind on the Talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This page is part of the WikiProject Education. The article itself is not rated on importance, but it is considered a "Stub-Class" on the quality scale, which is deemed to be "a very basic description of the topic." The quality scale also notes however that "all very-bad-quality articles" are categorized as Stub-Class. It is unclear based on the Talk Page which reason this article is considered Stub-Class.

Jessie Orgambide’s Peer Review

Hello,

I don’t see any article drafts here, but I would like to review it when you get it done. I’ll check back for updates. It looks like your analysis of the article was thorough so I look forward to reading what you come up with.