User:GoBears243/sandbox

Respond to peer reviews
Response to Miawach's Feedback:

Miawach seemed to have a positive response to my article, describing the strengths in my "History section" and described how I was able to explain clearly and there was no issue with tone when I talked about the barriers and problems that technology introduces in regards to privacy. Miawach also described specifics about my article, and liked how I contextualized the article with literary works like 1984 and discussed the problems with specific court cases. His one criticism, that I should include an international perspective regarding privacy, which concurred with Wikipedia's explicit suggestion itself, is one that I will be sure to take into account when editing my article in the future. Overall, I am grateful for Miawach's feedback and will be sure to implement the changes that he or she mentioned.

Response to Yzhang7's Feedback:

Yzhang7 seems to have a generally positive response to my article, describing some issues with tone and organization. In the first point that Yzhang7 makes, she described how I may have too many subsections, and as I move forward, I will try to make sure that I remove extraneous and unnecessary subsections to make sure the reader does not feel confused and the article remains concise. Yzhang7 liked my content, describing how it was detailed and chronological. However, Yzhang7 mentioned how I should eliminate some words such as "However" and "largely" in the "History" section, and in the future, I will be cautious of using words with strong connotations like those mentioned and eliminate similar words that exist in the current draft. Furthermore, Yzhang7 mentions how underneath "Legal discussions for privacy" there are two links that take me to articles that relate to this particular subsection that cause confusion for the reader since the reader does not know the purpose of these links, so I will be sure to clarify them in my following draft. Yzhang7 also mentioned how I should stay away from phrases like "last occurrences", such as when I described court cases that relate to privacy since there could be future occurrences of this event, a criticism I will be sure to keep in mind as I edit my article. Ultimately, I am thankful for Yzhang7's feedback and look forward to using his or her feedback to improve my article.

Possible Articles to work on
A possible article that I could edit could be one on privacy. Since civic technology is focused on improving civic outcomes and forming a connection between people and government through technology, privacy felt relevant. Furthermore, after doing the reading related to a digital election which contained how it is unclear how a voter's privacy is protected through a digital election, the article felt even more applicable.

Although the article's content was relevant, there was not enough information about privacy itself. For one, the history of privacy section was only relevant to the U.S. and did not include a global perspective on the origins of privacy, as explicitly mentioned by Wikipedia in the article. Other sections of the article also lacked or did not include information such as the technology, police and government, legal discussions, harassment, bots, and controversies sections. In addition, although Wikipedia did not explicitly mention this, when I was reading the section on various countries' perspectives on privacy, I found the section hard to follow since various terms and notable events were mentioned but not defined within the article or did not include links that would help clarify the terms. These respective sections needed to be expanded on, and if I were to contribute to this article, I would find relevant and trustworthy sources that would be able to add to these sections and ensure that the article was concise and clear. Moreover, the article was not written in a neutral tone, as some parts were explicitly mentioned as being written like an advertisement and needed to be fixed by Wikipedia such as the advertising on mobile devices section, while the section on the argument against protecting privacy had multiple grammatical errors, and as Wikipedia notes, had evident bias to it. Evidently, if I were to edit this article, I would remove and replace any bias and the advertisement section with more relevant and unbiased information. In addition to the article not including enough information and not maintaining a neutral tone, many citations either did not work or were not included. Some paragraphs would follow with a citation titled "where?" or "when?" and would not point to any place or time, while other parts of the article would follow a statement that began with "Some people say..." and not include any citation for the preceding statement. If I were to edit the article, I would make sure to not only include citations for dates, places, for any information I would be including in the article but also replace the missing citations with the correct citations.

Another article I would work on would be one on transparency, which is written in terms of a social context rather than a technical context. To me, transparency felt further relevant especially since the government could release information that could either damage or improve civic outcomes, and also related to the reading we did on a digital election, as the reading mentioned how the companies that helped lead digital elections were not transparent enough, or rather at all.

Throughout the article, the tone was neutral although transparency issues between various parties mentioned such as the government and people, proponents and opponents of releasing medical records of athletes, and elected candidates deciding not to release tax records to the public against those who demand the candidate to release tax records, etc. can be controversial. Although there was no bias present in the article, some important sections of the article could be expanded on, such as the wages section, since only a few examples were mentioned regarding how some countries release wages of select people, and thus if I were to edit the article I would not only include more examples, but also include the controversy and various viewpoints surrounding these acts of transparency. Furthermore, in the management section where the article discussed how various organizations must release final decisions to the public, and how this has been controversial with NGOs, the article failed to expand and give any examples, and if I were to edit the article, I would add more information in this section regarding the transparency, controversy, and various viewpoints regarding the transparency of NGOs. In the online culture section, where it was stated how online culture has popularized transparency, the article failed to give any examples of this fact, which could include the Cambridge Analytica scandal from a data perspective or the popularization of the #MeToo movement, which I would eventually include if I were to work on this article. In the sports section, the article failed to mention any controversies and only gave a simple explanation of how mandatory drug testing and a fight against sports corruption are examples of transparency. However, this would be an appropriate place to mention the scandal regarding Sha'Carri Richardson and her ban from the USA olympic track and field team after she tested positive for THC metabolites or include other athletes that have been over-tested. Lastly, in the politics section, the article only included loosely defined terms and acts passed from nearly two decades ago, while there could be many more recent examples of scandals and bills passed regarding transparency in politics from both the U.S. and international perspectives. Lastly, the politics section required further citations as not all the information was cited, and so, if I were to expand on the article, I would add more citations in the politics section of the article. Ultimately, I would add more recent and relevant content and add citations where needed in the transparency article.

Article Evaluation
I chose the evaluate the article on Instagram. To me, Instagram felt like it was a part of the civic technology realm (from the definition mentioned in class) since it is used to improve civic outcomes in more ways than one, be it through either organizing movements and raise awareness for underlying problems, disasters, increasing transparency between government and people, spread information about missing person whereabouts, etc. However, there are many caveats to Instagram's role in civic technology, since through many social media platforms misinformation and disinformation regarding serious matters can spread quickly, scandals regarding the government and other important issues can be revealed causing distrust between people and government, and overall mental health can decline as a result of Instagram, or social media in general.

In regards to the lead section, the introductory sentence was concise and clear, but a reader who did not know much about Instagram would not be able to necessarily decipher that Instagram was a social media application similar to Facebook or Twitter. However, the rest of the introductory paragraph, which mentioned the popular aspects of Instagram such as the most-liked picture, the most followed people, etc. were mentioned, it becomes evident to the user the contents of Instagram. There was a table of contents, like all Wikipedia articles, but the lead did not include a description of the major sections of the article. A decent portion of the article focused on Facebook's acquisition of Instagram, various critiques on censorship policies, data scandals, etc. that were not mentioned in the lead section. However, the lead section succeeded in staying on focus and did not mention any extraneous information that was not mentioned in the article; the article was also concise and easy to read.

The article's content was relevant and up to date, and I was reading I found no gaps in information, and for the majority of the article, the article was easy to follow. However, at some points, I felt like the Wikipedia article could expand on some serious matters. There was a great deal of information on the features of Instagram and critiques of Instagram's updates, but there were brief descriptions in the culture section of the article, which only mentioned Ellie Goulding's new song, and instead, the article could expand more on Instagram's overall culture and its role in the media and even in spreading awareness about important movements that have become more prominent in the last year. During the mental health section, the article discussed a study conducted in 2017, and it is evident that more recent information had to be said about the matter. Moreover, during the sexual harassment section, only one prominent incident from 2016 was mentioned, and sexual harassment is still a large problem in Instagram and social media in general and during the fact-checking section, I felt like there could have been more on presidential elections and the role Instagram played. In these respective sections, there were not that many links either that contained more information and recent information and research. However, the rest of the article that mentioned the development of Instagram, features of Instagram, and management of Instagram had sufficient information.

Instagram itself is not a product that can be necessarily debated on, and the article was solely informational. There was not any bias present throughout the article and a neutral tone was used throughout the article. When it came to controversial sections, the article presented both sides of the argument, normally the two differing perspectives being Instagram's executives and external media. Moreover, all of the citations or links I clicked on worked, and there was no issue with the credibility of the sources used.

In the talk section of the Instagram Wikipedia article, there was some irrelevant discussion, but most of the discussion was focused. There was some discussion regarding grammatical errors or information that needed to be added that were resolved through the reply feature, and there was some mention of how Instagram censoring content in the Middle East, and that was also resolved. In addition, the article was also of interest to many WikiProjects. Moreover, although we have not talked about Instagram specifically in class, we talked a bit in the first lecture about how it was interesting how Facebook, which owns Instagram, played a key part in the election and was a medium for spreading information or disinformation and misinformation, and this idea was mentioned a bit in the article.

Link to evaluation on talk page.

Chosen Article Reflection
I have chosen to work on the article discussing privacy. As I mentioned previously, the article relating to privacy had many problems, one being not only the lack of content but also the diversity of the content. For instance, the entire article, and specifically the section describing the history of privacy, only discussed matters from a U.S. perspective, not an international perspective, as Wikipedia explicitly mentions. Beyond the history selection, numerous sections simply had titles and had no information following it or just one or two sentences in these respective sections. Many important topics were not given enough emphasis such as the harassment and controversies sections. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, there were many grammatical errors throughout some sections (notably the advertising on mobile devices section) and many important terms were not defined or hyperlinked so I could understand the text completely, specifically on the international perspective on privacy section, which nevertheless needed more information. When I do edit this article, I will not only add more information by researching privacy through the proper sources but also clarify important terms in any means possible, be it through links, editing sentences, etc. In addition to the lack of information and clarification, there is surprisingly not a neutral tone maintained throughout the article, as Wikipedia notes in the advertising on mobile devices section. Thus, upon editing the article, I will ensure to remove the biased parts of the article and replace them with the relevant information in a neutral tone. In addition, as I mentioned previously, many citations were missing, as many statements were followed in what should be a proper citation, but instead had citations highlighted in blue titled "when?" and "where?" regarding important dates and events and some statements and paragraphs did not contain citations at all. Thus, the last part of the article I must work on is finding and incorporating the relevant citations needed in the article.

Below is a list of relevant, reliable books, journal articles, and other sources related to privacy:


 * Cline, Austine. "Supreme Court Decisions on Right to Privacy Cases".
 * Confessore, Nicholas (2018-04-04). "Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The Scandal and the Fallout So Far". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-09-21.
 * Holvast, Jan. "History of Privacy". IFIP International Federation for Information Processing.
 * "How Do Advertisers Track You Online? We Found Out". Digital Trends. 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2021-09-21


 * "History of Privacy Timeline / safecomputing.umich.edu". safecomputing.umich.edu. Retrieved 2021-09-21.


 * "Indian Supreme Court Declares Privacy A Fundamental Right". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-09-21.


 * Roberts, Siobhan (2020-06-16). "Who's a Bot? Who's Not?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-09-21.


 * Swinhoe, Michael Hill and Dan (2021-07-16). "The 15 biggest data breaches of the 21st century". CSO Online. Retrieved 2021-09-21.


 * "The Right to Privacy | Carmichael, Ellis, & Brock PLLC". www.carmichaellegal.com. Retrieved 2021-09-21.


 * "Your Technology Is Tracking You. Take These Steps For Better Online Privacy Life Kit". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-09-21

Link to talk page for privacy.