User:Cheersmate510/sandbox

Privacy seal (4.2th draft - peer review #4 + polishing)
A privacy seal is a type of trust seal granted by a third party provider for display on a company's website. Companies pay an annual fee (usually ranges from a few hundred to several thousand U.S. dollars) to have an image of the third party provider's seal pasted onto their home page or privacy policy page. Users can click on the seal and be redirected to the web assurance seal service’s website which verifies the validity of the privacy seal. They are meant to act as a visual assurance for consumers that the website in question meets a certain standard of privacy. The idea of a privacy seal originates with its physical manifestation – companies have long sought for seals of approval like Good Housekeeping to be placed on their tangible products in order to draw in customers who value "quality". While all web assurance seal services follow the guidelines set by the Federal Trade Commission, some providers may have additional requirements. Compliance checks for are then conducted on a regular or random basis. Privacy seals can be applied to various types of e-commerce websites. Some seal providers even create a special privacy seal that is geared toward certain products like mobile apps or accounting. There are many privacy compliance technology services, most notably TRUSTArc (formerly TRUSTe), WebTrust, PwC Privacy and BBBOnline.

The U.S. does not regulate e-commerce privacy as stringently as Europe or other countries in the world. With this in mind, U.S. companies have more freedom when it comes to disclosure notices and selling data to third parties for advertising purposes. Privacy seals are thus used to distinguish companies with strong privacy protection policies. Additionally, American based privacy seal companies make a pivot towards the broader field of reliability assurance and complaint resolution in the European marketplace. Privacy seals also have a major presence in the accounting industry of Canada and in general e-commerce in Japan and South Korea.

Privacy seals are meant to boost customers' perception of a company's website safety and regard for their privacy protection. Web assurance seal services also aid in online dispute resolution. A hot button public policy issue has been whether the U.S. government should regulate privacy in e-commerce. Past controversies and concerns have caused the need for privacy seals to come into question.

Origin
Privacy seals have been around since the the 1990s – with the TRUSTArc seal program being founded in 1996 and BBBOnline's in 1998. Privacy seals are self-regulatory tools that were invented to combat privacy concerns without governmental legislation. With the rise of e-commerce, it became apparent that privacy concerns were deterring potential customers. When purchasing online, customers are prompted to provide private information such as name, address, credit card information, and sometimes age or birthdate. This information can be sold to third-parties for advertising purposes or be used by the company for data profiling purposes. Companies can price discriminate by using the information collected to predict the highest price point a customer is willing to pay.

Except for Federal Trade Commission guidelines, first established in a 1999 report, privacy protection is mainly self-regulated in the United States. Self regulators argue that governmental intervention would harm e-commerce because its inflexibility does not allow for each company to experiment with their policies and disclosures. They believe that legislative practices are too slow and bureaucratic to be effectual; this makes regulations more burdensome than helpful in e-commerce. Self regulation allows for quick adaptations that will ultimately create the most ideal privacy practices. In theory, businesses will be forced to create privacy policies that satisfy customers' concerns because their economic success relies on being able to draw in more and more customers. Because privacy is a major concern for customers, they will purchase from websites they feel secure using. This relation between a consumer's perception of a company's website and their intention to purchase is the cornerstone of privacy seals.

Some detractors of self regulation and laissez faire regulation believe a "race to the bottom" effect will occur if there are no regulatory (financial) penalties. Strauss et al. found that seal programs seem effective in regards to privacy but believes lack of regulation is why privacy seals have not seen high rates of participation. They note the conflict resolution and investigative aspect of privacy seal programs, but state that they have limited power to redress the situation. They are not given any powers for punitive action against companies in violation of privacy standards. Research by Jamal et al., however, suggests that lack of regulation should not be a concern. Even without governmental or financial threats, e-commerce companies still adopt policies and practices of privacy protection and disclosure. This is despite no general federal or state law requiring them – there are slight overlaps in the case of protecting health information or children. Proponents of governmental regulation believe legislation would officialize rules that are already being followed by many already. FTC guidelines are already followed by most companies (as a result of meeting customer expectation). Proponents also state that legislation in the United States could be less specific than the European Union's – wiggle room for how a business uses the data collected could still exist.

Privacy seals assure consumers that a company is taking measures to protect their privacy and data. Companies must undergo a process of inspection by the seal provider to make sure they meet certain standards. Checks are then conducted regularly (depending on the provider this can be done annually, biannually or randomly) to ensure compliance. Although FTC guidelines act as a bare minimum, additional standards can differ between seal providers. For example, SecureAssure (launched in 1999) resorts to an opt-in practice rather than disclosure measures. They do not allow companies participating in their seal certification service to share any information beyond its primary use – i.e. no selling to advertisers. People using these websites must opt-in to receive promotional material (this includes emails). Privacy seals usually come with a fee that ranges from a few hundred to several thousand U.S. dollars. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) Privacy Certification program utilizes a sliding scale (starting at $0) that is based on the annual revenue of the company seeking certification.

Many privacy seal providers also serve as complaint resolution services. Participating seal service providers mediate conflicts between customers and the website in which their seal is displayed. They will also on occasion launch a formal investigation. The most severe action a privacy seal provider can enact is revoking the privacy seal from a company and thus producing negative attention. Action cannot be taken to remove the website or to enact a sizable financial penalty.

Uses
Privacy seals can be placed on many different types of e-commerce websites. Companies may also have different motives for wanting a privacy seal. Studies in the past have looked at the effectiveness of privacy in general e-commerce, as well as in specific categories like loan providers, travel booking, and online bookstores. ESRB has several types of privacy seals. Their Kids Online Compliance seal certifies companies whose target market are children. There are special laws that stipulate extra measures of protection and privacy for children – e.g. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). This seal is meant to indicate compliance to those additional standards. ESRB entered the privacy assurance space in 1999 and also introduced a privacy seal for mobile app services in 2013. A study conducted by Mai et al. examined online stores that sold e-books, textbooks, and audiobooks found that websites with privacy seals are able to charge a price premium because customers are willing to pay more if the website is deemed "safer" (via privacy seals) by them. Customers' perception of trustworthiness results from the presence of a privacy assurance tool like a privacy seal and the reputation of the company in question. Customers using websites with seals have higher rates of satisfaction and intention to purchase again. Privacy seals also desensitizes customers' perceptions of service performance. Kimery ''et. al'' found in their study that privacy seals only had a slightly positive impact on trust where unfamiliar e-commerce retailers were concerned. This means that well-known brick and mortar companies may after consideration decide that privacy seals are not worthwhile.

While privacy seals do not inform users about privacy like disclosure notices, they serve as a learning tool. Users can go to the seal provider's website (by clicking the seal) to learn what privacy protection practices are used by the participating company, as well as if the company is in good standing.

Privacy seals do not make customers more informed about their internet safety. This is because most customers do not read privacy policies (or click on the privacy seal) and therefore do not know the actual policies and privacy practices of a company. Still, company privacy practices usually align with what customers' expect in websites with privacy seals. Even though most customers do not take the extra step of clicking the seal, there is still accountability. Privacy seal providers would lose business if they did not uphold privacy and data protection to a certain extent or did not shape their policies to the desires (and priorities) of customers. Additionally, a study by Ruppel et al. which followed four fledgling websites states that businesses will build websites to reflect their values. A brick and mortar store that has established trust with consumers would be unlikely to build a website that would jeopardize that relationship. For this reason, websites may start off with the intention to promote product rather than facilitate actual transactions.

Effectiveness
There are four main privacy seal providers: TRUSTArc, BBBOnline, WebTrust, and PwC Privacy. Companies must make a decision on how much they want to pay, in addition to deciding which seal provider is the best fit. Companies can fall into the same trap that users fall into: perception of trust. Reputation from brick and mortar companies often translates to the online business place even though it may be unearned. When BBBOnline first started they had less clients then the already established TRUSTArc, but they were able attract big clients like American Airlines, eBay, Dell Computers, and AT&T. This is because they were already established as the Better Business Bureau (BBB), a global credential evaluator, in the brick and mortar marketplace.

Sheng et al. used eye tracking in their experiments to determine what draws consumers' attentions and the amount of information retained. They found that regardless of risk condition (cost of product), fixation times were longer for privacy icons then for privacy text or non-privacy content.

Research by Miyazaki et al. has compared perceived risk in e-commerce to other forms of shopping, more specifically mail order and purchases made by telephone. They found that consumers perceive online shopping as more dangerous than these other methods, but privacy seals are effective in mitigating concerns.

Although privacy seals have shown to work in attracting customers, they have experienced limited success. In the case of the WebTrust privacy seal program which is a joint venture between the U.S. and Canada, a study was done to determine the cause of its slow growth. The authors of this study, Lala et al. suggest it might be a marketing issue. Consumers are unaware of what privacy seals look like, as well as their purpose. BBBOnline Privacy Seal service ceased taking new applicants in 2007 and stopped their service in 2008, but this has not stopped websites from displaying their privacy seal to this day.

Privacy concerns
Level of privacy concern can vary depending on the type of website. This can partially impact a consumer's intention to purchase – which is also affected by price of product and level of certainty that the company will protect consumer data after the fact. A study by Sheng et al. examined how levels of concern changed with product. They found that in situations dealing with financial services, participants paid more attention to privacy practices (looking for a privacy seal or notice). Similarly, websites pertaining to homework assistance, dating, and medication also received high rates of attention to privacy practices.

Impact of internet literacy and social awareness
Privacy is talked about from a internet literacy perspective, as well as a social awareness dimension. People who are knowledgeable in terms of how to use the internet are not necessarily well versed in internet safety or the extent to which the government is involved. ''Dinev et. al'' analyzed data from over 400 respondents using structural equation modeling to test various relationships between Internet literacy, social awareness, Internet privacy concerns, and intention to transact. They found that people who were more Internet literate had less concerns whereas people who are more socially aware (pay more attention to socio-political factors and current events) are more concerned about their privacy. Past research has shown that young adults (18 to 29) are less likely to be concerned or proactive about their privacy even though they are the most likely to have their identity stolen. Risk in e-commerce is not just about the security measures put in place by the organization's website but also has to do with the behavior of the consumer.

Each privacy seal provider has its own standards in addition to following the rough guidelines the Federal Trade Commission has established on privacy protection. BBBOnline was found to make more statements about how they secure transmission of information than TRUSTArc. Generally speaking, websites with privacy seals are more transparent about their privacy practices, but they often ask for more personal information than websites without a privacy seal. This is because privacy seals evoke a sense of trust from the customers which makes them more willing to share personal information. Privacy seals are tools of persuasion. Companies benefit from having a privacy seal because it creates an appearance of trustworthiness. Privacy seals have little effect on perceived risk of using a website, but does strongly affect how trustworthy a customer perceives a website. Websites without seals are not necessarily more risky. This is because privacy seals are a product companies must opt-into, they are not automatically given to any websites that meet certain requirements. Privacy seals do not mitigate risk, they are a safety heuristic.

Controversies
Privacy seals have landed in hot water in the past due to slip ups. TRUSTArc mistakenly used a third party that tracks information on its own website. TRUSTArc also discovered that two of the websites certified by them were in violation of providing data to a marketing firm.

European Union
An American creation, privacy seals, have slowly made their way into Europe. Most seal programs are not only American in origin but also mainly consist of U.S. websites. QXL, a now defunct online auction house, was one of the first European companies to receive certification by TRUSTArc. Seal programs in Europe make their main focus reliability of a specific sector rather than privacy protection because the European Union (EU) already has regulations in place. U.S. company, ePublicEye, partnered with France's eBuyClub in 1999 to rate the reliability of shopping websites – they expanded in 2000 to include Germany and Spain. Like the United States, seal programs have failed to gain traction in Europe. Prior to the European Union's passage of Directive 95/46/EC, data protection laws were enacted on an individual (country) basis. Also known as "The Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and the Free Movement of Such Data", Directive 95/46/EC was passed in 1995. The European Union (EU) not only regulates but also institutionalizes data privacy: every EU country has a data protection commissioner appointed to an agency.

The European Union has strict regulations for privacy unlike the United States and also needs to ensure the compliance of multiple countries rather than just one. As a result, many American based privacy seal services are used only for their complain resolution services. EuroPrise (started in 2003) is an EU funded project which serves as the main privacy seal service in Europe. Starting in 2009, it has been controlled by the Independent Centre for Privacy Protection Schleswig-Holstein (ULD) which is a German data protection agency. Each EuroPrise seal includes the country of the certification body (company being certified), a unique certification number, and the expiration date. European Multi-channel and Online Trade Association (EMOTA) also has a trust seal geared towards European e-commerce, however it cannot be displayed alone. It needs to be placed next to an accredited e-Commerce trust seal. They are also not solely privacy focused. Privacy and data protection is just one of their requirements for qualification.

Whereas there is a huge debate between governmental and self-regulation of privacy in the United States, it is less controversial in Europe. This stems from the European idea that the state should have an active role in protecting its constituents from social harm.

Canada
The WebTrust seal program is a joint venture between the American Institute of Certified Accountants (AICPA) and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). A study by Lala et al. shows that despite initial excitement, this product has failed to gain traction. They state that this is likely due to a mix of two factors: 1) costs of participating in a seal program are prohibitive and 2) consumers cannot tell the difference in quality between various privacy seal providers. Lala et al. found a preference in consumers for high information assurance seals. They believe that the issue is marketing; WebTrust need to do a better job of convincing Internet firms that it is worth the money to use their program.

The Privacy and Big Data Institute at Ryerson University partnered with Deloitte to create a privacy scorecard and seal. Based on Ryerson University's seven foundational principles, Deloitte created 29 measurable criteria. Once it is determined that a company passes all the requirements, they are given permission to display the privacy seal referred to as "Privacy by Design Certification Seal". This seal is valid for three years but must be renewed annually – which involves signing an attestation form and paying a renewal fee.

South Korea
Privacy seals are not received the same in all countries. In a comparative study between the United States and South Korea, Kim et al. found privacy seals had a strongly positive effect on customer's intention to purchase and a strongly negative effect on concerns in the United States. The study's two surveys (one based in each country) revealed that privacy seals did not significantly influence South Korean shopper's intent to purchase or their concerns. Kim et al. suggest this is because of South Korea's collectivist culture which makes them more trusting of their government. Places where governmental influence is welcomed would have less use for privacy seals because users would in theory be satisfied with the measures the government takes to protect their privacy.

Japan
Privacy seals entered the Japanese market because the Japanese government believed privacy assurance to be paramount to ensuring the growth of e-commerce. Starting in April 1998, the Japan Information Processing Development Center (JIPDEC) has been managing the PrivacyMark program. Ten years prior, JIPDEC published their "Guidelines for personal data protection in the private sector". As of 2015, PrivacyMark has certified 19,000 organizations. In 2008, JIPDEC created a mutual recognition program in China in partnership with Dalian Software Industry Association (DSIA).

Peer Review #4 "Privacy Seal": Cheersmate510 x Midnightinterludes
General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing? Cheersmate510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Seal

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes but don’t need to capitalize “Privacy” in the first sentence
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation 5/5

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, very thorough work and great improvements made. I also think if possible more could be added to the controversies section (if sources allow), also I noticed on the main space talk, someone suggested merging with trust seal- i think maybe your article could benefit from adding a “See also” under some sections and/or at the end of your article

Content evaluation 5/5

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. But if the research is available, I think some more information regarding controversies could be improved

Tone and balance evaluation: 5/5

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, good job citing more! Did you removed some of your sources though? I noticed your references list is significantly shorter than what it used to be but everything is still cited well!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation: 5/5

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Good improvements from last week. Just two small things:
 * "This is despite there being no general federal or state law that requires this – there are slight overlaps in the case of protecting health information or children.” could reword for clarity/flow
 * "Still, proponents of governmental regulation believe legislation would simply make the unofficial rules official.” simply could potentially imply bias, don’t need
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, good job adding subsections! I would just fix some of the headings such as Privacy Seal to Privacy seal because Wikipedia only wants the first word to be capitalized! (e.g. Privacy Concerns-> Privacy concerns, International Applications-> International applications)

Organization evaluation: 5/5

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation: 5/5

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

New Article Evaluation: 5/5

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, very thorough. Evident that detailed research was done
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Really thorough research. Represents the topic holistically and sections break down the concept well. I love how you continue to add a lot of information every week. I had a great time editing your article over the past weeks and can’t wait to see it on the main space! Great job.
 * How can the content added be improved? Perhaps adding to the controversies section or if you can’t, I would look into merging it with privacy section and having it at the end because the controversies are privacy-related. Great job overall, your article is well written and the research is quite evident! Since this week is the last peer review, I also wanted to take the time to say thank you for peer reviewing my article for the past weeks. I really appreciate it!

Overall evaluation: 5/5

Peer Review Draft #4: Cheersmate510 x ColdRainyDay45
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Cheersmate510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Seal

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead provides a good overview.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything found in the lead is relevant to the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all additions are relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all of the sources are from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Maybe you could add some "Main article" links at the top of sections.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * If there is more information/current event examples that can be added into the "Controversies" section that can help balance that section out. Otherwise, maybe you could breakdown the "Privacy concerns" section into more subsections and incorporate the controversies information in those sections.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes! I would maybe consider adding a citation here:
 * "Websites without seals are not necessarily more risky. This is because privacy seals are a product companies must opt-into, they are not automatically given to any websites that meet certain requirements. Privacy seals do not mitigate risk, they are a safety heuristic."
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, it is evident that great, thorough research has been done. Great job!
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are from the 2000s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I really like the tone you maintain throughout as well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not see any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the images help the reader match a visual to the descriptions throughout.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, I like the updated captions!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I really like your explanations throughout and how you incorporated information from the research you conducted. Your article flows very nicely, and the content is presented in a way that is easy to understand and informative.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I really like how you add new content each week. You did a really nice job breaking down the topic and presenting many perspectives.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Really great job with your article! I liked seeing you improve it week by week! Thank you for giving me feedback each week on my drafts. Super excited for this to go into the main space! Other than the "Controversies" section, I have no other feedback!

Peer Review #3 "Privacy Seal": Cheersmate510 x Midnightinterludes
General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing? Cheersmate510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Seal

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes great job adding in international applications to the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation 5/5

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, very thorough work and great improvements made. I love the addition of Japan. I also think if possible more could be added to the controversies section

Content evaluation 5/5

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. But if the research is available, I think some more information regarding controversies could be improved

Tone and balance evaluation: 4.5/5

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes but I would go through and make sure to cite more such as:
 * The idea of a privacy seal originates with its physical manifestation – companies have long sought for seals of approval like Good Housekeeping to be placed on their tangible products in order to draw in customers who value "quality”.
 * Privacy seals are meant to boost customers' perception of a company's website safety and regard for their privacy protection. Web assurance seal services also aid in online dispute resolution. A hot button public policy issue has been whether the U.S. government should regulate privacy in e-commerce. Past controversies and concerns have caused the need for privacy seals to come into question.
 * BBBOnline was found to make more statements about how they secure transmission of information than TRUSTArc.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation: 4/5

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Dinev et. al -> needs italicizing and et al.
 * not necessarily a grammatical or spelling error but you repeated a couple sentences twice (once in uses and once in privacy concerns)
 * "This is because privacy seals evoke a sense of trust from the customers which makes them more willing to share personal information. Privacy seals are tools of persuasion. Companies benefit from having a privacy seal because it creates an appearance of trustworthiness. Privacy seals have little effect on perceived risk of using a website, but does strongly affect how trustworthy a customer perceives a website. Websites without seals are not necessarily more risky. This is because privacy seals are a product companies must opt-into, they are not automatically given to any websites that meet certain requirements. Privacy seals do not mitigate risk, they are a safety heuristic.”
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, good job adding subsections!

Organization evaluation: 4/5

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation: 5/5

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

New Article Evaluation: 5/5

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, very thorough. Evident that detailed research was done
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Really thorough research. Represents the topic holistically and sections break down the concept well. I love how you continue to add a lot of information every week. Even added some images which was a nice touch
 * How can the content added be improved? Perhaps adding to the privacy controversies would help but really thorough job!

Overall evaluation: 5/5

Peer Review #2 "Privacy Seal": Cheersmate510 x Midnightinterludes
General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing? Cheersmate510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Seal

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes but I would add in a little regarding international applications to the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation 4.5/5

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, very thorough work and great improvements made (added in all the plans from last week). I love the addition of the international applications, especially the bit about South Korea and cultural differences.

Content evaluation 5/5

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. I think with the addition of new content and revisions from last week make the article more balanced! Good job!

Tone and balance evaluation: 5/5

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes but I would go through and make sure to cite more such as: under privacy concerns, "This is because most customers do not read privacy policies (or click on the privacy seal) and therefore do not know the actual policies and privacy practices of a company. “ should have a citation to back it up! but overall great sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation: 5/5

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Make sure to italicize all the “et al.”’s and “i.e.”,
 * Under uses “websites” should be “website’s reputation”
 * Under privacy concerns, "While they do not inform users about privacy like disclosure notices, they serve as a tool of learning.” clarify who “they” is
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes but I think the main sections should include some sub-headings to help break up the large sections

Organization evaluation: 4/5

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation: N/A

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

New Article Evaluation: 5/5

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, very thorough. Evident that detailed research was done
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Really thorough research. Represents the topic holistically and sections break down the concept well. I love the addition of the international applications section.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe continue to add to the international applications section if possible? It would be neat to see more countries represented. Also, it could be helpful to have a pros and cons section that breaks down privacy seal but I think this theme is consistent throughout the article- just a suggestion though!

Overall evaluation: 5/5

Peer Review Draft #3: Cheersmate510 x ColdRainyDay45
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Cheersmate510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Seal

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead provides a good overview of the subject.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything found in the lead is relevant to the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and informative.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content is relevant to the topic. I like that examples are provided throughout, and I like that there are 4 subsections under "International Applications."
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all of the sources are from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything included is very thorough, and all of the content is relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the citations are appropriately placed. The content is all supported with reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, several sources are used covering the various topics in the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are from the 2000s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * "Privacy seals serve as an assurance to consumers that a company is taking measures to protect their privacy and data." maybe rephrase beginning "Privacy seals assure customers that.."
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not notice any such error.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I like the addition of subsections, like "Effectiveness" under the "Uses" section, and "Controversies" under the "Privacy" section.
 * I think that more content could be added to the "Controversies" section to balance it with the rest of the "Privacy" section.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the visual helps the reader understand what the seals can look like.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, but I think adding more descriptive information in the caption can help with understanding the seals.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the article is organized, and several sources are used throughout.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I really liked the images that you chose to add. I thought it was a great visual. The information is very thorough and presents multiple perspectives.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Great job! I loved the additions that were made this week. It might be nice to further break down the "Privacy" section into subsections so that "Controversies" is balanced with the rest of the content.

Peer Review Draft #2: Cheersmate510 x ColdRainyDay45
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Cheersmate510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Seal

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead breaks down the main ideas that are found in the rest of the article well.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything found in the lead is relevant to the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is the perfect length and has the right amount of information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content is relevant to the topic and the examples provided enhance the reader's understanding.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all of the sources are from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything included is very thorough, and all of the content is relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, everything included informs the reader about the subject matter.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * "Because privacy is a major concern for customers, they will purchase from websites they feel secure using. This relation between a consumer's perception of a company's website and their intention to purchase is the cornerstone of privacy seals." -- I would maybe add a citation after this sentence.
 * There are many reliable sources that are used and cited throughout this article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, a plethora of sources and studies are cited and cover all aspects of the topic well.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are from the 2000s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links provided work. Some of the same sources have different citation numbers; for example, source 47 and 48 are the same, but I think this should be fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is well-written and clear. It is evident that thorough research was completed.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no significant grammatical or spelling errors. The draft is extremely polished.
 * Phrases like et al., e.g., i.e. should be italicized
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content is broken down into sections that categorize the information presented well. Subsections may also help break up some of the longer sections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, great list of sources.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes, all patterns are followed.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, more examples have been added throughout and the international applications section has been developed more.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is an abundance of great sources/research incorporated throughout, and this really makes a great article.
 * How can the content added be improved? It might be nice to break up some of the larger sections into subsections.
 * Really great job! I enjoyed reading your article a lot!

Peer Review "Privacy Seal": Cheersmate510 x Midnightinterludes
General info Lead
 * Whose work are you reviewing? Cheersmate510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Seal

Guiding questions:

Lead evaluation Great.
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

Content evaluation Great.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Missing some content, but author has comments/plans that address gaps. Could be interesting to add in if privacy seals are not decreasing risk and not too successful, why do they still exist (lack of knowledge from consumers, money thing? way to make money by selling to companies who in turn want customers)?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Tone and balance evaluation: Good but some improvement would benefit the article.
 * Is the content added neutral? Somewhat.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, it seems like the article is against privacy seals or the language/tone regarding privacy seal is biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Yes.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Sources and references evaluation: Excellent.
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Organization evaluation: Great.
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, but I added some comments/edits.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Images and media evaluation: N/A
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

New Article Evaluation: Great.
 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Overall evaluation: Great!
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, even more after edits/notes author intends to make are made.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Really thorough research. Represents the topic holistically and sections break down the concept well.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some specific examples could add to the article

Peer Review First Draft, "Privacy Seal": Cheersmate510 x ColdRainyDay45
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Cheersmate510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cheersmate510/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and provides a great introduction to the subject matter.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all sources are from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It is clearly indicated where more content is going to be added. Everything added thus far is very informative.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are several great sources used.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I think it might be interesting to look into GDPR's influence on privacy seals.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, great sources are used.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content of the article is well-written and very informative. I like how there is a specific section for privacy concerns.
 * How can the content added be improved? It might be interesting to add some more specific events/examples.

Thoughts on Wikipedia's definition of neutrality

 * What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?


 * Wikipedia requires their content to be neutral. This means representing all significant points of view in a proportional manner. Writers need to avoid opinions or using “facts” that have been contested frequently in the past. It is also important to write in a way that does not promote one view over another. I agree with Wikipedia wanting articles to be neutral. Encyclopedias are trusted because they are factual. It is not an encyclopedia’s job to tell people how they should feel about veganism or whether a certain company should be trusted or not. Instead, people should be able to get a well rounded view (multiple points of view) on a subject and make their own mind up.


 * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?


 * Wikipedia is impacted by the fact that anyone can write articles or edit them. While our lab is trained in writing in a neutral manner, as well as abiding by the other principles of verifiability and no original research, not everyone else is. This makes it hard to completely trust the information written on the article pages. Past teachers have often told me for this reason not to cite Wikipedia but rather go through the references to find reputable sources – such as academic papers. Wikipedia should be used as a jumping off point or for roughly understanding a subject.


 * On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?


 * Material should not come from press releases, the subject’s website or blogs. Press releases and other material written by the subject (or its representatives) will inevitably be skewed and biased. They will frame controversies to seem less bad and can leave out important information. It is important to use reputable third party information reporting on the subject because they can report in a neutral and unbiased manner.


 * If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?


 * 100 years ago, people wrote differently; they had different priorities and values. It is also important to focus on who had access to education. Who could write or even had the time to? A hundred years ago, it would have been almost exclusively white males writing Wikipedia articles. There would have been less focus on neutrality and the representation of multiple points of view. The opinions of the minority were less valued at the time. Attitudes towards what should be written about or included in a narrative would have been skewed. It is only recently that places like Yale or UC Berkeley have begun to acknowledge their roots in slavery/plantations and the stealing of Native American land. These issues should be included in an informative and neutral way. Articles on topics like nonbinary gender would not have existed a hundred years ago. Without the internet, it would have been harder to verify information. The voices of many underrepresented groups (other races, genders, social classes, etc.) would have gone unheard because they would not be in a position to write these articles. The internet now allows a diverse set of people to interact, but in the early 1900s, people tended to interact with other similar people. The perspectives of women/non-binary people, people of color, and people of lower socioeconomic statuses would most likely be left out of mainstream literature. In 100 years, there would hopefully be more diversity in the authors and therefore perspectives. I’d want the perspectives of minorities to be better represented. Proportionality should be regarded in an unbiased manner. Just because minorities have in the past had a quieter voice does not mean their point of view should be represented less. Volume of voice does not equate stake in a situation. We must be aware of the voices that were suppressed and do our best to represent them. An example of something I'd want to see in the future would be the Wikipedia article on UC Berkeley explaining in-depth how the land it sits on comes from the Ohlone tribe.

Outline

 * 1) Lead
 * 2) look out in articles to add information on unique numbers assigned to seal and length of validity.
 * 3) History
 * 4) Origin/How long have they been around?
 * 5) Purpose/How has their purpose changed over time?
 * 6) Uses
 * 7) Presence on what kinds of websites?
 * 8) Books, textbooks, audiobook
 * 9) Big role in complaint resolution
 * 10) Visual assurance. Parallels to physical seals (build off lead)
 * 11) avoid tracking, selling of information to third parties
 * 12) profiling, price discrimination
 * 13) Online dispute resolution
 * 14) Concerns
 * 15) Consumers not doing their own research. Understanding versus actuality/practice
 * 16) More likely to purchase
 * 17) Do not mitigate risk
 * 18) Youth more at risk
 * 19) Controversies
 * 20) TRUSTe mistakenly using a third party that tracks information on their own website
 * 21) TRUSTe discovered that two of its seal recipients were providing data to a marketing company.
 * 22) International
 * 23) Europe
 * 24) South Korea
 * 1) South Korea

Discussion on Plagiarism
Instructions:

Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why? Blog posts and press releases are poor sources of reliable information because of who is writing these. Blog posts can be written by whomever – they do not need to be experts nor are they necessarily trained to write in a neutral way. On the other hand, press releases are internal. These writers can not be unbiased because they are writing about the company they work for i.e. the people who pay them.

What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company? A company's website will be giving information that paints them in a positive light. They are in control of the image they present which will inevitably be a positive one. A third party however would hopefully include the good and bad - and be focused on the facts.

What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism? Plagiarism can take many forms. One might directly copy and paste something or they might slightly alter words but keep the overall structure. Either way, the problem is failing to properly attribute an idea to the original author. Copyright violations, however, occur when something is used without authorization. For example, some images are not labeled for reuse. If a wiki user were to include this image in a Wiki article it would not matter if they cited the source because it is not allowed to be used in this instance.

What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism? A great technique for avoiding close paraphrasing and plagiarism is to make sure you understand the material. When you write, do not have the source up on your screen or if it is a book open because it will tempt you to look at it ... this may lead to similar sentence structuring or directly copying what is written. You want to have a good enough understanding that you can put it down in your own words. If you are quoting, it is better to keep it short. I also recommend keeping track of links/sources and doing your works cited as you go rather than all at the end

* Post your answers in your sandbox and send them out on the project email list*

Plan for my article 07/07/2020 - Privacy Seal
Currently, privacy seal exists only as a definition. I plan on creating an in-depth article detailing its purpose, background history, issues/concerns, and notable examples. Information in the article will be cited from academic articles - with the goal of articles being no more than 10 years old. Exceptions would be made if I were talking about its history etc. I will then replace the hyperlink to the word privacy seal in the Wiki trust seal article.

Virtual lab discussion: What's a Content Gap?
Now that you're thinking about what makes a "good" Wikipedia article, consider these additional questions. Post your answers in your sandbox and send them out on the project email list.

Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them? I think a content gap occurs - when in the case a Wikipedia Article - it does not touch upon a certain area or is not fully flushed out. An example of this is if they talk about the origin and creation of the internet and how it is used today but skip over the 2000's. Also missing could be mention of controversies, laws pertaining to the subject, or important figures and dates.

What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them? Content gaps may arise because the subject of the Wikipedia article is broad or in need of extensive research. The Wikipedians writing these articles may not be experts on the topic themselves. Instead, writing a wikipedia article is a process, it is meant to take time. One idea to minimize content gaps is for the author to utilize the talk page; pose questions like "Am I missing anything?" "What areas should I further elaborate on?". You can also avoid content gaps by asking a friend to read the article you are writing; ask them if it makes sense and if there was anything they wish was included.

Does it matter who writes Wikipedia? I believe that it does matter who writes on Wikipedia. While people do not necessarily need to be experts to write about a certain field, they do need to be aware of Wikipedia's principals - being neutral etc. It is also important that the Wikipedian understands what are good, reliable sources, as well as, how to link hyperlinks, add pictures, etc.

What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"? Being unbiased according to Wikipedia means being impartial; articles should not push a certain point of view. I believe being unbiased needs to go a step further. People must step outside of themselves and question whether their point of view is truly neutral. Just because you are not intentionally pushing a certain perspective does not mean you are un-biased. Historically, the BIPOC narratives have been repressed. Because history has mainly been written by white males, it is inevitable that our lens of understanding has been affected. A google search will often not reveal these perspectives, instead Wikipedians must seek these BIPOC writers and perspectives themselves.

Evaluate an article
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There are terms mentioned in the lead which are only briefly touched upon. Many do however have links to other wiki articles on the subject.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise but in my opinion could do with further elaboration and descriptions of the other sections included in the article.

Lead evaluation I would give it a 3/5[edit]

Content[edit] Guiding questions

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes

Is the content up-to-date? I believe so!

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, it is lacking a history section which would show how these issues evolved over time. Various laws are listed but without a brief description that would incline readers to learn more, this article only touches the topic superficially.

Content evaluation I would give it a 3/5

Tone and Balance[edit] Guiding questions

Is the article neutral? Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation I would give it a 5/5[edit]

Sources and References[edit] Guiding questions

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, The financial section did not have any citations. According to the training, good wiki articles have at least one citation per section/paragraph. The Protection of privacy in information systems could also do with more citations.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes

Are the sources current? Yes, there a several articles from within the past 5 years included in the references

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cheersmate510/sandbox

5/10

7/18/2020 User:Cheersmate510/sandbox - Wikipedia

Sources and references evaluation I would give it a 4/5[edit]

Organization[edit] Guiding questions

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but I think this article would benefit from expansion and creation of new sections.

Organization evaluation I would give it a 4/5[edit]

Images and Media[edit] Guiding questions

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No Are images well-captioned? Not applicable

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not Applicable Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not Applicable

Images and media evaluation 0/5[edit]

Checking the talk page[edit] Guiding questions

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? One conversation was regarding neutrality; one user wrote an "information should be free" paragraph for America. Another user posed the possibility of merging this article with "Digital Privacy". Another user questions the credibility of a source in the Cable Television section.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated C high and was a part of the Wiki Education Foundation supported course assignment

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Not applicable.

Talk page evaluation 4/5[edit]

Overall impressions[edit] Guiding questions

What is the article's overall status? I am not quite sure what this means. Activity appears slow. Breadyornot (who I believe is a member of my group) has left the last two comments on the talk page

What are the article's strengths? Lots of hyperlinks

How can the article be improved? Needs to expand on issues and how they have changed with time. Add a picture!

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say this article is underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation 3.5/5[edit]

Optional activity[edit]

Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~

Link to feedback:

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: (link) Private browsing

Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am interested to learn more about how private browsing works. How does it differ from regular web browsing.

Guiding questions

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Lead evaluation I would give it a 4/5[edit]

Content[edit] Guiding questions

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content up-to-date? I believe so!

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? A brief explanations of differences between popular browsers (Safari, Firefox, Google chrome). It also needs a section on past controversies.

Content evaluation I would give it a 3/5

Tone and Balance[edit] Guiding questions

Is the article neutral? Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation I would give it a 5/5[edit]

Sources and References[edit] Guiding questions

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The lead section lacked citations even though it made several claims.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes

Are the sources current? Yes, there a several articles from within the past 5 years included in the references

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation I would give it a 4/5[edit]

Organization[edit] Guiding questions

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but I think this article would benefit from a section listing past incidents/controversies.

Organization evaluation I would give it a 4/5[edit]

Images and Media[edit] Guiding questions

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes Are images well-captioned? Yes

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, the picture is small making it hard to read the text in the picture. I would also want more pictures showing Google Chrome and Safari's versions of private browsing

Images and media evaluation 3/5[edit]

Checking the talk page[edit] Guiding questions

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? One conversation was a debate over the article's name. Another was applauding whoever used a funny phrase in the article wording.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated Start ??? It is within the scope of Wikiproject internet and wikiproject computing.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Not applicable.

Talk page evaluation 4/5[edit]

Overall impressions[edit] Guiding questions

What is the article's overall status? No one has talked on the page since 2015.

What are the article's strengths? Someone included a table of the various private browsing options with instructions on how to initiate this mode.

How can the article be improved? Needs to expand on issues and how they have changed with time. Add more pictures of the other private browsers

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say this article is underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation 3/5[edit]

Optional activity[edit]

Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~