User:EstabanMiranda/sandbox

= Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal = Proposed Edits:


 * Change name of Characteristics of Data to Geographical Target
 * Include map that include the people most affected by it with the information that is already in the article
 * https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/state-by-state-breakdown.pdf
 * https://about.fb.com/news/2018/04/restricting-data-access/
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-cambridge-analytica-affected-us-states-graphic-2018-6
 * Keep the Sections “Characteristics of Data” and describe the data that was collected and how the people that took the quiz were catergorized
 * Keep the Sections “Characteristics of Data” and describe the data that was collected and how the people that took the quiz were catergorized

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/06/cambridge-analytica-how-turn-clicks-into-votes-christopher-wylie


 * Clean up the News Coverage section
 * Go in depth more on the publications which broke the news first and how they investigated
 * https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2018/sep/29/cambridge-analytica-cadwalladr-observer-facebook-zuckerberg-wylie
 * https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/cambridge-analytica-files
 * Carol Callwadr’s earliest article monitoring them: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/cambridge-analytica-democracy-digital-age
 * Remove irrelevant info like the  Meghan McCain example
 * Expand on the Use of the Data section
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html
 * Russian Oil ppl: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-russia.html
 * Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html?login=smartlock&auth=login-smartlock&login=smartlock&auth=login-smartlock
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/facebook-cambridge-analytica-a-timeline-of-the-data-hijacking-scandal.html
 * Expand on Testimony to Congress
 * Testimony information
 * Summary of Testmony https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/11/mark-zuckerbergs-testimony-to-congress-the-key-moments
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EgrrR1M2Ck
 * Write about what resulted from that
 * Add an Impact section too?
 * Facebook’s new commitment to privacy
 * https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/f8-2019-keynote/index.html - live updates from F8 2019 - Zuckerberg adresses privacy issues & emphasizes “the future is private”
 * Add information on Brittany Kaiser (not mentioned at all)
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/02/brittany-kaisers-work-with-cambridge-analytica-helped-elect-donald-trump-shes-hoping-world-will-forgive-her/
 * Targeted: The Cambridge Analytica Whistleblower's Inside Story of How Big Data, Trump, and Facebook Broke Democracy and How It Can Happen Again  (Book written by Brittany Kaiser about the topic)
 * More leaked files potentially (updated information): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-analytica-data-leak-global-election-manipulation
 * Methods used in 2016 are still relevant in 2020
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/us-election-trump-cambridge-analytica-facebook-fake-news-brexit-vote-leave-a9304421.html
 * Information on Christopher Wylie
 * https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election
 * Other sources:
 * The Great Hack (Netflix Documentary)
 * The Great Hack (Netflix Documentary)


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? It seems that the information is very basic and everything is relevant to the topic. There is nothing that I found distracting.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Very biased, lack of sources to back up certain claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Overrepresented favoritism for social media with no sources, and no quantifiable information to show impact.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Links work and arguments made with sources do support claim.
 * 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? Not everything is supported by a source. Sources include scholars' article and information. No advertisements and potentially biased information.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Outdated, nothing has been handed since 2017. I think that they need a section in which they explain how activist use this platform to their advantage for social movements.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Biased conversation, basic structure...
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Part of Wikipedia Sociology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I think that this is actually very similar to what we talk about in class because it doesnt't provide a very thorough explenation or comprehensive guide to understand how social media and social movements have impacted each other.